Categories
Subconscious archetype structuralist anthropology model

Blueprint, the subconscious structure in cultural media

Abstract. Culture is rooted more deeply than analogy, symbolism, experience, or any conscious impulse. The archetypal structuralist model of an axial grid of typology, raises individual and social subconscious behaviour to conscious appreciation; and challenges the paradigm of cumulative conscious constructs. The core content of culture is a set of specific recurrent features, hard-wired into nature and subconscious behaviour; measurable and predictive in artworks, built sites and alphabets worldwide; and testable against about 100 details of an inter-dependent structure of five layers. The archetypal model includes twelve to sixteen character types (each with specific optional features, at specific average frequencies); their sequence; an axial grid between the eyes or focal points of specific pairs of opposites; five central area limb-joints or junctures; and the seasonal time-frame of the artist’s culture. Structuralist anthropology is a viable science, despite its recent detour into animism and perspectivism. Structuralism offers social perspective and therapy to the current age of global migration, population, socio-economic and environmental shock, perceived as ‘culture’ shock.

KEYWORDS: archetype, art, axial grid, built sites, expression, structuralist anthropology, subconscious.

By Edmond Furter. Independent structuralist anthropologist, author of Mindprint (2014) and of Stoneprint (2016). Edmondfurter@gmail.com

  1. Introduction

Anthropologists and their informants seemed to share the paradigm of culture as a cumulative, conscious system or construct. Terence Turner (2009) cited ‘ethnographic evidence for significant, fundamental features of conceptual construction, and meaning of specific categories and propositions, that differentiate Amazonian societies [from one another], and from Modernist ideas.” In this paradigm, no idealist model could account for variations among cultural systems. But some myths indicate an archetypal paradigm, and several media express universal structure. Primordial animals and ancestors hold prototype objects, “self-existing, self-objectifying things and behaviours, found, appropriated, never made. People copied these.” (Turner 2009). Post-structuralism sought a midway to escape the impasse of nature v culture dualism: “Humans produce, or regulate in culturally standardized ways, internal bodily processes of transformation, that give rise to aspects of social personhood. Such products, either artefacts or conceptual knowledge, cannot be simple, internally homogeneous classes, or in a semiotic order of signification, or ethno-scientific taxonomy; but complex schemas of heterogeneous elements and levels of features, comprising transformational steps in a process of mediating relatively natural to cultural forms.” (Turner 2009). The present study demonstrates the complex schema (Furter 2014), but it is clearly innate and natural. The central question of What is human, now finds and answer in structuralist anthropology: We replicate natural structure and meaning, but appropriate it as ‘products’ of our faculties.

1.2. Structuralist failures

Structuralist anthropology had failed to demonstrate specific invariable principles, processes or patterns in cultural behaviour or artefacts; beyond ritualisation of obvious natural structures such as kinship. The field had found only apparently arbitrary details in myths, cosmologies and other crafts; and failed to isolate any comprehensive abstract structure. The ideal of formulating behaviour, as in economics, linguistics, semiotics and psychology, may seem to reduce culture to innate perception of natural categories and meaning; yet formulas grant access to subconscious social processes; reveal our place in nature, and thus answer the central question of human sciences, as Turner (2009) noted. But Claude Levi-Strauss was “the last major anthropologist to focus on that question”. Turner noted fundamental flaws in raising any cultural duality, such as nature v culture, to the level of a paradigm; and applying a rigorous model to apparently ‘fluid’ data. But several ‘splinters’ in cultural functions remained ‘beams’ in scientific paradigms. Viveiros de Castro (1998) had identified “implicit philosophy in interpretation” as requiring a ‘bomb’ to breach. Animists and Perspectivists magnified the dualist flaw into multi-culturalism, reducing nature to culture, thus repeating the Aristotelian error of allowing logic to override observation. Human sciences struggled to find the ghost in behaviour, despite the success of structuralism in natural sciences.

1.2.1 Society disrupted science

Anthropology is “an effort to understand human nature through systematic study of qualities in us, that vary in time and place, and those that don’t…” noted Peter Wood (2015). But Wood immediately recognised the dominant evolutionary and diffusionist paradigm; “…and how we emerged as a species, diversified into thousands of languages, tribes, and civilizations.” Despite “steadfast determination to stand outside the myths people tell themselves, to see things as they really are,” social anthropology had “learned the trick of promoting new myths in the name of de-mythologizing.” This failure of anthropology applied to all human sciences; inability to rise above socio-political agendas, such as rationalisations of colonialism, egalitarianism, social guilt, nostalgia, ideologies, and vague institutional agendas such as ‘curation’ and ‘education’. All the conscious and subconscious uses and abuses of culture remain scientific baggage. Anthropology remained partly untested popular philosophy, an extension of cultural crafts, as in divinity or art history training.

Structuralism, also named Ecological or Symbolic, was also distracted by social anthropology applications, labelled Political Economy, Ideology, or Cultural Construction of self v other; including some simplistic data, pragmatic interpretations and populism (Endicott et al 2005). Science had never studied cultural crafts sufficiently to inform practitioners or users at a paradigmatic level, despite the example of the successes of popular psychology. Culture consumes anthropology on its own terms; as critique of Modern Western thought and society, or as the supposed voice of ‘pure, primitive’ cultures.

1.3 Structuralist successes

Structuralist anthropology did influence human sciences and technologies, but under other labels, such as animism. A minor structuralist revival in the 2000s applied behavioural algorithms to data collection and interpretation, prompted by computer automation. One journal editor had declined a draft of this paper because the author was “the only structuralist anthropologist left”. But Turner (2009) had demonstrated transformed structuralism in supposedly post-structuralist and deconstructionist models. Levi-Strauss’ (1955) “Mathematics of man” had added impetus to cybernetics, information technology, machine interface, and artificial intelligence (AI), now one of the main fields of science and technology. His search for the machine in the ghost of culture was partly product of, and partly a prod to automation. Reconstructions of geared layers of the Antikythera device from a BC shipwreck, and Chinese clock towers, are reminders that our innate impulse to automate nature into logic, is timeless. George Boole (1854) had abstracted some behaviours into mathematical formulae using binary quantities, 1 and 0, as functions of And, Or, or Not. His book, Laws of thought, inspired programmers a century later. Structuralism may resemble a time-bomb, but it is alive in all sciences and crafts. Godel in Vienna, competing with Russel in England, found that logic applied to sets; could be consistent or complete; but not both. This paper describes five layers of structure, each consistent with itself (isolated from 700 examples), each with sets of optional features. In WWII, Alan Turing came across an Italian engineer’s description of a lecture on the failed Difference Engine of mathematician Charles Babbage, interpolated by Babbage’s student, Ada Lovelave, estranged daughter of Lord Byron. Ada was inspired by the Spinning Jenny and Jacquard’s punch-card looms, to propose extending automation beyond numbers. Babbage soon designed the Analytical Engine, but lost parliamentary funding. Turing mechanised letter code permutations in an electro-mechanical Universal Machine, nicknamed ‘The Bomb’ for Allied intelligence at Bletchley Park, to crack German Enigma codes. His colleagues built the Colossus machine on Boolean logic, to crack German Loren codes. A year after WWII, a science fiction magazine story imagined a world-wide web. Turing had noted in his book in 1950 that it was impossible to predict which problems a computer could solve; and that some logical solutions would remain improvable. He also predicted artificial intelligence, provided that rules of behaviour could be isolated. This idea was controversial, and is likely to remain so even after the discovery of subconscious behaviour (Furter 2014, 2016). Bletchley Park work was classified until the 1970s, but soon influenced some civil applications. Binary code, Nasa’s moon missions, magnetic tape, Xerox windows, Steve Wozniac’s Apple, and circuit miniaturisation all required user-friendly interfaces. Hard sciences technologised natural structure despite lacking theories, or ‘Shut up and calculate’ in the post-war tech axiom. The web was realised sixty years after the war, when Vint Cerf’s integration of defence and civil security agency radio and electronic networks escaped via academia into the corporate world in about 2000. Within a decade it was the largest and potentially most integrative and democratic artefact ever made.

Big budget science and tech banks on unravelling natural structure, as in the Large Hadron Collider, and in serving innate behaviour with animist applications such as ‘social media’. Structuralist anthropology seemed political, un-falsifiable, and incapable of breaking cultural or natural codes, but practitioners had misunderstood and abandoned it.

1.3.1 Synthesis requires structure

Turner (2009) proposed that natural-cultural structure resided in transformations, such as maturity cycles. Ironically, this development itself signified a phase in scientific maturity. Physical sciences co-operate to infer invisible structures in nature, such as bio-chemistry and physics; enabling applications in social crafts, such as health care and environmental management. Human sciences have access to massive data from the cultural record, including Google algorithms, but lag behind in theory, interpretation and applications, despite several efforts at synthesis, as by Talcott Parsons (Hays 1958). The humanities shy away from studying some core content of cultural behaviour, such as spiritual crafts, in any universal or comprehensive context. Education and training serve cultural crafts mainly by perpetuating media praxis, such as art, divinity and literature; in local, temporal, and political contexts. The net result of specialisation and occupational praxis is a post-modernist lack of context, and an unexamined general scientific paradigm.

Cultural qualities tend to relate to categories of natural, social and economic values (as Max Weber had recognised); such as species, elements, organs, functions and tools. Even apparently simplistic features such as ‘bag, weapon, or mixing’, have inherent meanings and abstractions that enable ‘grammar’ in perception, thus inviting structuralist study of perception, within consciousness levels, human nature, physical nature, and ultimately principles of matter and energy. Thus culture may offer as much access to immutable laws, or archetype as a self-calibrating standard, unaffected by place and time; as nature does. Jung and Jaffe (1965) had noted: “Again and again I encounter the mistaken notion that an archetype is determined [by cultural influences or experience] in regard to its content… It is necessary to point out once more that archetypes are… determined only as regards their form, and then only to a very limited degree.” This study indicates that even ‘forms’ (such as major gods, in Jung’s example), are global, thus natural, and not ‘culturally determined’ either. Even average numbers of selections of optional character features are global (see frequencies in Table I and the graphs).

Some archetypal themes are conventionalised (such as the creative vortex or churn, in the Hindu and rock art examples below; or healing trance rituals in San, Siberian, and other polities). Typology now emerges as the once elusive recurrent “motifs in the jet-stream of time.” (De Santillana 1969). Demonstrations of recurrent behaviour (see Data sources below) now confirm that we have individual and collective compulsions to re-express the innate canon, algorithm, blueprint, or ‘grammar’ in all our media; as affirmation and therapy in the broadest sense of the term. Demonstration of inherent commonalities, and superficial differences, offers conscious context to subconscious behaviour that may be valuable in the era of dynamic global migration and supposed ‘culture’ shock. We are now more diverse than even the Sumerian, Indus, Persian, Hellenic, Roman or Colonial empires.

The archetypal model challenges paradigmatic assumptions about supposedly ‘liberal’ arts and culture as artefacts of ‘development’. The subconscious expression model is highly testable. Universality of language and architecture validates testing of features of grammar or architecture; but invalidates the nurture model. Innate language capacity does require some transfusion, thus language is a multi-generational artefact. Likewise, transfusion could not sustain any cultural media without innate, natural, structuralist features in perception, ecological context, and in meaning itself (Furter 2017a). Any application of generic culture imposes its own layer of arbitrary elements or styling, for polity bonding, appropriation and exploitation. The thin layer of arbitrary features may likewise be subject to rigorous rules, a subject for further study. The present study offers a model to isolate, study, predict and automate the blueprint of subconscious and social behaviour.

1.3.2 Structuralist formulae and paradigms

James B Harrod (2018) demonstrates that an algebraic group-theory formula of Andre Weil was the format for Levi-Strauss’ kinship model, also applied to some aspects of ritual, artistic design, built site layout, and agriculture field layout. Levi-Strauss had formulated aspects of myth into aggregates, to extract various Functions (Fx, Fy), acting on Terms (a, b), relative to ( : ) other, swopped or substituted Functions and Terms; thus Fx(a):Fy(b) ~ Fx(b):Fa–1(y). ‘Deep structure’ as used by Levi-Strauss and Chomsky fell out of academic fashion, but the formula was revived and automated to reveal recurrent motifs in cultural and scientific texts. Harrod had earlier (1975) revised the Weil-Levi-Strauss formula to quantify myth as an unfolding process, instead of a structuralist analogy. Instead of Straussian opposites such as ‘a v a–1’ in an equation of ratios, Harrod proposed a set of transformations (>), demonstrated in qualities of self-awareness, in ‘animist’ mode. His Revised Canonical Formula (rCF) uses equations that are “asymmetric, non-linear, non-reversible, inverse by transformation”. He proposes “networks of semantic complementary binary opposites in cultural-value space”. He found “no universal application in the evolution and history of culture forms”, and concludes that culture and cognition ‘evolves in stages’, after the individual maturity model of conscious cognition. Yet he explained “creative imagination” as “not derived logically, [but] constrained or channelled by the formula.” The difference between ‘constraint’ and archetype could be a flimsy semantic veil, obscuring the large and testable semiotic structure in nature and culture (Furter 2017a).

  1. Blueprint in cultural media

The present study confirms that pairs of spatial opposites play some roles in archetypal expression, but challenges Harrod’s conclusions by expanding evidence of global application of a more concrete, less abstract, and more layered formula, with limited content.

2.1 Data sources

Data for Table I and the graphs, are from 265 artefacts, including 170 artworks and rock art works (Furter 2014); 45 built sites (Furter 2016); and 50 seals, including 25 ancient and 25 classical seals (Furter 2018c); all from a wide range of cultures and eras. A further 500 artworks (400 listed in Furter 2014) and 55 built sites confirm the five inter-dependent layers of structure. It is near impossible to find any artwork, built site, or cultural set with eleven or more characters, that does not express the standard structure, or doubled adjacent structure in cultural works with about 22 to 38 characters. Even semi-geometric shapes are kinds of characters (Furter 2015b).

2.1.1 The archetypal structuralist model

The five subconscious layers of expression are: (a) typological characters with specific optional features; (b) peripheral sequence, clockwise or anti-clockwise; (c) axial grid between eyes or focal points of pairs of opposites; (d) three pairs of polar junctures, implying three planes; (e) orientation of one polar pair vertical or horizontal to the ground-line or a cardinal direction, often indicating the seasonal time-frame of the artist’s culture.

Figure 1. Axial grid of the sixteen types (numbered 1 to 15, but repeating 5), and four transitional types (c-numbers), as they appear in artworks and building sites. Orientation, angles and radii differ in each work. Each character expresses some, never all of the cluster of features of its type.

Types could be labelled after any popular set. Generic labels, such as social functions used here, avoid the false impression of diffusion from any particular medium or culture. Zodiac seasons and decanal hour myth labels were used initially, requiring repeated clarification that they do not arise from conscious invention or diffusion. Correspondence theories are often misled by archetypal recurrent features, or by citation of parallel expressions among media and cultures; into assuming diffusion, and ignoring innate nature.

Numbering of the transitional c-types change in this paper, from 3c 6c 10c 14c in previous publications, to 2c 5c 9c 13c, for easier use of alphanumeric Sort functions in data. Their positions remain the same.

Recurrent behaviour subconsciously and rigorously follows several quirky rules. Type characters always have their eyes (except a womb at 11, and a heart at 12/13; or interior focal points in built sites), on the axial grid formed by pairs. Spatial elements in culture resemble cosmology, but both express archetype, and do not derive from one another. Cultural artefacts express two ‘galactic’ poles (4p, 11p); two galactic crossings (7g, 15g); an annual or Ecliptic Pole at the axial centre; and two ‘celestial’ poles (Cp and Csp) or midsummer and midwinter. Poles are not expressed by eyes, but limb joints (junctures in built sites). Four types could be double, as in Figure 1 (1v8 and 2v9; 5a v12 and 5b v13), or single (only 2v9 and 5v13); thus the total is usually sixteen or twelve. Some other pairs are doubled in complex artworks or built sites.

A shift in the position of two or three eyes could erase the sequence and the structure, but almost never does so. Axial grids are not inherent in any collection of about eleven to twenty items. Morley’s miracle (1899) applies only to the equilateral shape of an inner triangle, formed by the intersections of lines that trisect the corners of any irregular triangle into three equal parts. In axial grids, angles are irregularly unequal. Napoleon’s theorem applies only to some predictable properties of equilateral triangles, based on the edges of a triangle. Axial grids are not based on lines of equal length.

Table I. The minimal twelve type characters in any artwork, built site or craft set.

Label; known archetypal features with known global average frequencies:

1 /2 Builder; twist 44%, cluster 23%, bovid 19%, bird 19%, tower 18%, build 14%, sack 10%, hero 10%, book 8%, rain,

2c Basket; weave 25%, container20% instrument 20%, shoulder-hump 20%, hat 15%, snake 10%, throne 10%,

3 Queen; neck-bend 31%, dragon 19%, sacrifice 17%, queen 13%, school 12%, spring 10%, fish 6%, ovid 5%,

4 King; squat 30%, rectangle 28%, king  22%, twins 13%, sun 12%, bird 10%, fish 8%, furnace 8%, field 5%,

5a/5b Priest; varicoloured 37%, priest 34%, hyperactive 33%, tailcoat-head 32%, assembly 30%, horizontal 28%, water 24%, heart 24%, large 24%, bovid 20%, winged 14%, invert 12%, reptile 10%, sash 8%, equid, ascend,

5c Basket-Tail; weave 16%, tail 14%, U-shape 10%, contain 8%, herb 4%, oracle, spirit (ka), spheres,

6 Exile; in/out 58%, horned 44%, sacrifice 30%, small 14%, U-shape 13%, double-head 12%, caprid 8%,

7 Child; rope 24%, juvenile 24%, bag 22%, unfold 13%, beheaded 10%, chariot 8%, mace 6%, off-grid,

7g Galactic-Centre; limb- joint 38%; juncture 34% (throne, altar, spiral, tree, staff); path/gate 18%; water 16%,

8/9 Healer; bent 28%, strong 28%, pillar 28%, heal 22%, disc 14%, metal 8%, ritual 6%, canid 4%,

9c Basket-Lid; disc/hat/lid 27%, instrument 25%, reveal 16%, hump 15%, weave 8%,

10 Teacher; W-shape 44%, staff 36%, hunt master 24%, guard 20%, metal 14%, market 14%, disc 12%, council 11%, snake 8%, ecology 8%, school 6%, wheel 5%,

11 Womb; womb 88%, wheat 15%, water 14%, tomb 11%, interior 8%, library 8%, law 5%, felid 5%,

12/13 Heart; heart 83%, felid 42%, death 34%, rounded 21%, invert 14%, weapon 11%, war 9%, water-work 8%,

13c Basket-Head; oracle 14%, head 14%, weave 8%, ship,

14 Mixer; in/out 43%, time 28%, tree 20%, angel 15%, bird 11%, antelope 10%, dancer 8%, felid 8%, reptile 4%,

15 Maker; churn 44%, rope 28%, order 27%, rampant 26%, bag 20%, mace 16%, doubled 16%, face 12%, canid 12%, sceptre 11%, smite 8%, reptile 8%, winged 8%,

15g Galactic Gate; junct 30% (river 10%); limb-joint 12%.

Polar features (see the triangles in the centre of Figure 1) also follow universal average frequencies. The axial centre is usually unmarked at about 60%, or on a limb-joint or juncture, expressing both ends of a polar axle, and thus the projection angle.

4p Gal.S.Pole; mark 82%; limb-joint 67%; juncture 17% (spout 12%, stream, speech),

11p Gal. Pole; mark 88%; limb joint 64% (hand 12%, elbow 10%, foot 12%, etc); juncture 24% (door 12%, corner, etc),

Midsummer (cp); Limb-joint 54%, or juncture 24%.

Midwinter (csp); Limb-joint 46%, or juncture 24%.

One of the polar axles is on the horizontal plane 50%, or vertical plane 12% (or on a meridian or latitude on a built site). Polar markers usually place midsummer on or near type 12, 13, 14 or 15 (see Figure 1), implying spring and the cultural time-frame 90 degrees earlier (in seasonal terms), as Age Taurus1, Taurus2, Aries3 or Pisces4. Some recent works are framed in Age Aquarius5a, which started in 2016 (Furter 2014). The type hosting spring, 1, 2, 3 or 4, is often prominent. The general theme of a work is indicated by features shared among three or more characters. Works express about 60% of the optional, measurable, recurrent features.

Categories of the identified features are apparently inconsistent with conscious logic, indicating subconscious access to archetypal logic. Rigorous average frequencies, and consistency through millennia, also rule out learning, nurture or conscious revisions. The full repertoire appears in the oldest examples, about BC 26 000 (Furter 2014), ruling out accumulation of idiosyncratic ‘ideas’, and of localised cultural ‘frameworks’, as some cognitive archaeologists suggest for San art of the last millennium (Lewis-Williams and Pierce 2012).

2.2 Structuralist labelling

 

1Builder 2Builder 2cBasket 3Queen 4King 4p
8Healer 9Healer 9cLid 10Teacher 11Womb 11p

 

5aPriest 5bPriest 5cTail 6Exile 7Child 7g
12Heart 13Heart 13cHead 14Mixer 15Maker 15g

 

cp csp ? ? ?

Table II. Labels for marking typological features in cultural artefacts.

Labels are used in pairs of spatial opposites, here given above-below one another. Some pairs may remain unused; often the transitional c-types, or two of the four doubled types (1v8, 5a v12) may remain unexpressed in a work. Characters with eyes off the grid, without a limb-joint on a polar point are labelled ?. Numbering follows the horary (hours) sequence, also used in divination and emblems such as the Tarot trumps (Furter 2014), validated against atomic (proton) numbers in the periodic table (Furter 2016). Pairs of opposites are seven or eight numbers apart: 1v8, 2v9, 3v10, 4v11, 5a v12, 5b v13, 6v14, 7v15. Magnitudes are fifteen or sixteen numbers apart: 1:16, 2:17, 2c:17c, 3:18, 4:19, 5a:20, 5b:21, up to about 64, expressing base15 and base16, confirmed by chemical groups, and transition elements analogous to the four c-types. Proposed type numbers are probably archetypal.

2.2.1 Frequency graphs

Figure 2. Line graph of average frequencies (in percentages) of the seven most common features (see Table I) of each of the minimal twelve subconscious types and four border types (marked by thick vertical bars) in artworks and built sites.

The line graph could be traced in axial format (see the version of this paper on Researchgate.net), with direct spatial analogy to how artists use canvases, and how communities use built sites.

Adjacent combined or split types 1 /2, 5a/5b, 8/9 and 12/13, express the same features at nearly the same frequencies, thus they are combined in data, causing minor peaks in the graphs. These four may be differentiated into eight types in future. Frequencies peak around type 11p, with a secondary peak around type 4p opposite. Four of the highest frequency features have spatial elements (here marked by dotted lines), in addition to their sequence position: type 11 has her axis on her womb; type 12/13 has his axis on his heart; types 6 and 14 are notably ingressed to, or egressed from the centre of the artwork. Frequency ranks indicate some interplay between the typological or ‘ecliptic’ plane, and the frequency or ‘galactic’ plane. The time-frame or ‘celestial’ plane seems to affect only seasonal features.

3. Structured art ‘design’

Figure 3. Example of archetypal structure in religious art (Vishnu churn after the Mahabharata. Tracing after De Santillana 1969. Type labels and axial grid after Furter 2014). Ropes, churn, canines and doubling express the general theme of types 15 and 15g, re-creation and incarnation.

Table III. Typological characters in a Vishnu pillar drawing (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; Ring instrument of Vishnu (twisted).

2 Builder; Vishnu (twisted), some features of flanking types (NO EYE).

2c Basket; Umbrella (lid), and flower (cluster), and king’s rattle (instrument). C-types are off the grid, in their sectors.

3 Queen; King with four heads (necks, dragon, spring).

4 King; King (king).

5 Priest; Priestess (ritual).

5c Basket-Tail; Snake tail (tail).

6 Exile; Turtle (reptile), at the centre (extreme ingress).

7 Child; Pony, multi-headed (unfolding, decapitated), with saddle (bag).

8 Healer; Puller (strong?) without rope.

9 Healer; Pot? (NO EYE).

9c Basket-Lid; Three pots, closed (lid).

10 Teacher; Lotus goddess (arms up, autumn, balance).

11 Womb; Dog midriff (womb).

13 Heart; Elephant chest (heart).

13c Basket-Head; Ship (ship, container, texture).

14 Mixer; Elephant person with snake heads (mix, energy), far out (egress).

15 Maker; Two (double) dogs (canine) on churn snake (rope). Some functions are at 1 /2.

15g Galactic Gate; Vishnu lower hand (limb-joint).

The axial centre is on the turtle head (perhaps neck in the original artwork; limb-joint?).

11p Galactic Pole; Bow (juncture).

Midsummer (cp); Turtle front upper claw (limb-joint), or on the churn base (juncture).

Midwinter (csp); King’s foot, or knee (limb-joint). These markers imply spring and the cultural time-frame as either Age Taurus2-Aries3 (about BC 1800), probably the perceived era of cultural formation; or Age Pisces4, contemporary with the work. The central top character as a spring marker indicates cosmological Age Taurus2, however most alchemical works express that time-frame.

The main general theme here is type 15 Maker, of ropes, churn, re-creation and canines. This theme appears worldwide. Another general theme in the work is type 10 Teacher; arms-up, staffs, balance.

De Santillana et al (1969) popularised ethnographic archaeo-astronomy in Hamlet’s mill, reading Icelandic and several corresponding cosmic motifs as diffused and degraded ‘astronomy’. They indicated the possibility of innate subconscious impulses, but argued for diffusion. Archaeo-astronomy still reads myth as coded astronomy or proto-science, and does not investigate the role of archetype, and thus nature, in culture, nor in scientific practice.

4 Structured rock art ‘design’

Figure 4. Example of archetypal structure in rock art (Zimbabwe, Matobo range, Nanke Cave. After Parry 2012. Type labels and axial grid after Furter 2014). Ropes and a large churn express the general theme of type 15, re-creation.

Nanke cave in Zimbabwe was part of a set of oracles, on par with Bronze Age and classical Greek, Egyptian and other sites. Roman spiritual centres such as the oracle of the dead at Baia, in the volcanic Bay of Naples near Rome, also had paintings at their entrances; likewise destroyed to re-distribute spiritual authority (Paget 1967. Temple 2003).

Table IV. Type characters in a Nanke Cave painting (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; Shoulder-head of rope-man churn (twisted), leaning on staffs (trance, of 8 opposite).

2 Builder; Rope-man churn (twisted) (NO EYE).

2c Basket; Shoulder-head rear, ropes (weave). C-types are usually off the grid.

3 Queen; Ostrich (long neck).

4 King; Antelope cow?, with young.

5a Priest; Antelope running (active).

5b Priest; Bowman spanning (active).

5b Priest B; Priest? (ritual?), axis on his chest (heart, of 13 opposite) and three with beams (horizontal).

6 Exile; Antelope (horned). And swimmer (ingress).

7 Child; Swimmer or walker.

7g Galactic Centre; Swimmer, arms up (limb-joints?), staff (of 10). Some apparently interrupted artworks indicate that visual expression spirals out as bags or limbs (named ‘formlings’ in archaeology) from this junction.

8 Healer; Swimmer in churn centre (strong?), at rope-man’s legs (pillars).

9 Healer; Swimmer? (NO EYE).

9c Basket-Lid; Fish pool churn wave (weave, lid).

10 Teacher; Swimmer (arms up?).

11 Womb; Pregnant womb (womb).

12 Heart; Runner?

13 Heart; Lion (felid), axis on chest (heart, confirmed by 15-14-13 flat outline).

14 Mixer; Dancer (dance), arms up, staff (of 10).

15 Maker; Antelope between two ropes (rope).

15g Galactic Gate; Antelope rump (limb joint).

The axial centre is unmarked as usual.

4p Galactic S. Pole; Small bowman’s feet? (limb-joint?).

11p Galactic Pole; Bender’s shoulder (limb-joint).

Midsummer (cp); Churn’s front elbow (limb joint), on axis 14-15, implying spring and the cultural time-frame as Age Aries-Pisces, probably the perceived era of cultural formation. But midwinter (csp) could be on the churn’s hip (limb joint), on the axis 5, implying spring and the cultural time-frame as Age Taurus, typical of alchemical works in all cultures, and supported by the centrality and prominence of types 1 and 2. Structuralist time-frames are approximate.

The main general themes here are type 15 Maker and 15g, ropes, churn, re-creation, and limb joints. This theme also appears in Indian art and myth, as a milky ocean of soma at the former spring equinox. The infinity wimple also expresses totality of responses to external pressures, named ‘panarchical discourse’ in history (Gunderson et al 2009); or ‘phase transit’ in chaos theory 3D graphs. Another general theme in the work is type 10 Teacher; arms-up, staff, hunt master, ecology.

5 Structured campus at Delphi

Figure 5. Example of archetypal structure in Delphic Apollo precinct about BC 400 (plan after Coste-Messelière 1936. Type labels and axial grid by E Furter). General themes here include types 4 King (sun, twins, rectangles, walls, fish, here a dolphin); and 4p (junctures, water); and 5 Priest (ritual, varicoloured, hyperactive, judgement, ascension).

Table V. Typological characters at Delphi Apollo (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; Krateros column (tower).

1 Builder B; Apollo temple west chamber.

2 Builder; Stadium stairs. Statue of Auriga, Charioteer.

3 Queen; Apollo temple centre, slain dragon (dragon, long neck, sacrifice). Stage apron Hercules frieze of tamed monsters (dragon, sacrifice).

3 Queen B; Archaic building.

2c Basket; Apollo’s interior omphalos stone (monster head) in a net (weave), sunken (2 pool). Statues of Krateros saving Alexander (2 twisted) in lion hunt (3 bent neck).

4 King; Dionysus two identical buildings (twins), brother (twins) of Apollo (king), twin (twins) of Artemis. Apollo Dolphin (fish) inner door, in building of two east-west diagonals (twins).

5a Priest; Apollo’s hut of bay branches, wax, feathers, bronze (varicoloured), two eagles (elemental, cardinal). Apollo as Zeus (priest), eagles crossed (4p juncture) to drop omphalos. Knydian hall (assembly), mural of wooden horse (equid).

5b Priest; Apollo Sitalcas, Grain Guard (of 10), highest at 70ft (large); Daochus, draped (sash), leg flexed (4), a Delphic priest (priest). Entrance pillar of Prusias2 of Bithynia, equestrian (equid). Euremedon palm (6 tree) by Agamemnon’s charioteer (equid). Many features (varied).

5c Basket-Tail; Neoptolemus sanctuary; Syracusian treasury; tripods (oracle) of Gelon and Hiero; Aemilius Paulus pillar for PrusiasII of Bithynia, equestrian (equid); Acanthus plant column (6 tree), three graces under a tripod (oracle. 6 chair) holding a cauldron (container); Sockle stone.

6 Exile; Attalos portico, protruding (egress); Chios altar (sacrifice); Akanthian treasury.

7 Child; Rhodian chariot (chariot); Plataian tri-serpent spiral column (unfolding. 8 snake); under a golden tripod (6 chair).

7g Galactic Centre; Athenian porch. Central gate (gate) to Kastalian spring (water).

8 Healer; Prytanaion, fire altar (flame).

9 Healer; Cyrenean; Corinthian; Athenian stoa (pillars).

9c Basket-Lid; Corcyrian Bull revealed (oracle) a tuna school (ophiotaurus, snake-bull, transition).

10 Teacher; Market gate (market). Statues of Aegospotiamoi; Arcadians; and Philopomen. Spartan Admirals (guard) monument, Lysander crowned (crown).

10 Teacher B; Statues of Spartans, Athenes, Argives, wolf logo (canid); Threshing floor, Halos (11 crops), where Apollo kills a fountain dragon (3 opposite).

11 Womb; Argive King’s crescent (interior). Seven Epigonoi crescent (interior). Both of Argos, ‘Wheat Field’ (crops).

12 Heart; Sikyonian treasury interior (interior), reliefs of war (war), spears (weapons). Cnydian treasury, Triopas, Artemis shooting (weapon) at Tityus.

13 Heart; Siphnian treasury interior (interior), frieze with lions (felid), gods in battle (war) v giants. Cnidian interior (interior).

13c Basket-Head; Sibylline rock (oracle).

14 Mixer; Theban, protruding (egress). Boeotian. Athenian, central (ingress).

15 Maker; Bouleuterion, ‘bread, chew, talk’ (order), of local council (sceptre).

15g Gate; Sanctuary of Ge (15 creation). Asklepius. Two main SW gates, Gymnasium gate (gates).

The axial centre is probably unmarked, as usual.

4p Gal. S. Pole; Dionysus stairs (juncture). Kassotis spring (spout). Site’s long axis (juncture). Alyattes’ silver wine bowl on spiralling iron bands (junctures). Apollo (4 king) pronaos cauldrons.

11p Galactic Pole; Threshing floor (11 crops) south corner (juncture), site’s long axis (juncture). Tarantines’ captive women (11 wombs). The galactic polar axle is on the site’s long axis (juncture).

Midsummer (cp); Had moved from the Sibyl rock north edge, near the north-south cardinal, to the tall Naxian winged sphinx column (junctures).

Midwinter (csp); Had moved from the Apollo temple left corner, to the platform left corner (junctures). These markers placed the site’s subconscious ‘summer’ in 14 and 15, thus ‘spring’ and the cultural time-frame as Age Aries and Age Pisces (from about BC 1500, and from about BC 80); both ahead of the Age of the builders. ‘Predictive’ time-frames are typical of national legacy sites (Nemrut, Turkey, in Furter 2016: 238-241). Oracle sites seem to emphasise express the four transitional types (2c, 5c, 9c, 13c).

Delphic Apollo sanctuary nestles in a larger scale stoneprint in the area (not illustrated here; see note under 5b), wherein it probably expresses type 5 (assembly, varicoloured, ritual, hyperactive); as the Vatican City stoneprint is geared to the Rome stoneprint; as some Izapa stele engraving mindprints (such as the tree of life engraving) are part of a stele cluster stoneprint, which is part of a pyramid cluster stoneprint, which is part of a pyramid field stoneprint; as Teti’s pyramid group nestles in the Sakkara pyramid field stoneprint; as the Gobekli Tepe engravings form part of the houses, which express a larger scale stoneprint on Gobekli hill (Furter 2016, and 2016b; Expression 15).

Practical and conscious motivations are independent of subconscious archetypal structure. For example, Greek buildings were oriented by surveying one diagonal (crosswise, corner to corner) on a cardinal direction (east or north). Ranieri (2014) listed diagonal orientations of 200 Greek temples, including sixteen buildings of the Delphic Apollo sanctuary. The only overlap between regular geometry or celestial orientation, and the subconscious stoneprint, is in one element of the time-frame orientation. In Delphi, the galactic polar axle co-incides with the long axis of the site.

6. Structured city in Brussels

Figure 6. Example of archetypal structure in medieval Brussels (map after Pizzatravel. Type labels and axial grid by E Furter). General themes here include type 10 Teacher, of law enforcement (legislature, capital, and EU administration), balance (diplomacy), ecology and polarity.

Table VI. Typological characters in Medieval Brussels (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; Congress Square obelisk (tower); and The Unknown Soldier; and Barricades Square.

2 Builder; Graphic Story centre (2c texture).

2c Basket; Paribas Fortis Bank (moving to a new building at type 13c in 2018).

3 Queen; Martyrs Square (sacrifice).

4 King; Our Lady (womb, of 11 opposite) of End of Earth, outside early medieval Brussels, and of Good Success. Northward lies the Atomium and Mini Europe.

5a Priest; Opera (hyperactive).

5b Priest; Origin Court; and Mint; and John Baptist of Beginnings, of camel skin coat (tailcoat). Outside the wall is another John Baptist.

5b Priest B; St Catherine, flying angel on a pillar (hyperactive, horizontal); Charcoal Lane, Brick lane (varicoloured); near St Géry and Notre Dame aux Riches.

5c Basket-Tail; Stock Exchange; St Nicholas, black (varicoloured), of merchants (varicoloured).

6 Exile; St Gorick. West lies the cruciform Realm building.

7 Child; Our Lady of Good Assistance, of nurses with bags (bag). A miraculous statue was found on Compostella pilgrimage route (bag). Former St James hospital. Large Market (bag, rope).

7g Galactic Centre; Fountain Square (water, light). Synagogue. St Anthony near the wall (juncture).

8 Healer; Peeing Boy fountain, Juliaanske ‘extinguished a bomb fuse to save the city under siege’ (strength feat), formerly of stone (pillar).

8B Healer; Near Europe statue (pillar). Axial centre of Brussels gates (strength. Not illustrated). Parliament (OFF GRID).

9 Healer; Our Lady of the Chapel, relics of St Boniface of Brussels opposed (strength) corrupt king FrederickII, and Francois Anneessens, beheaded for civil rights (strength).

9c Basket-Lid; Courts of Justice (10 enforcement, balance), ‘Gallows’ Hill.

10 Teacher; Our Lady on the Table, south facade.

11 Womb; Our Lady (womb) on the Table (platform, interior). A healing statue from Antwerp to the Crossbow guild.

12 Heart; St Jacques of Coudenberg; was chapel of Charles Quint. Royal Square (bastion). Palace 1500s, hall of Burgundy Dukes (bastion) ruin, 1775 Revolution law court (war), 1802 church.

13 Heart; Royal Palace (weapon) interior (heart).

13 Heart B; Brussels Park south pond (water-work).

13c Basket-Head; Brussels Park north pond. New Paribas Fortis Bank (bastion) with inner garden (interior), moved from 3 in 2018.

14 Mixer; National Palace. Former park (tree).

15 Maker; Cathedral Sts Michael and Gudule (doubled), Belgian patrons. Archbishop of Mechlin-Brussels (doubled), royal church (sceptre), ducal graves (sceptre). An 1100s church site. Window of LouisII of Hungary and his queen kneeling before Trinity (churn).

15g Gate; Freedom Square (juncture).

The axial centre is south of St Hubert Galleries, on the Montagne-Sculptor Roads intersection (junction).

11p Galactic Pole; Mont des Arts Park (juncture).

Midsummer (cp); Cathedral Square south end (juncture). Midwinter (csp); St Hubert Galleries south facade, on the east-west cardinal (orientation). These markers would place summer in 14-15, thus spring and the cultural time-frame as Age Aries-Pisces, at the start of the Christian era. The north-south cardinal indicates cosmological Age Pisces, contemporary with the work. Gates in the defensive wall of Brussels from another stoneprint around the old city centre, as in Piacenza, Rome, and elsewhere (see note on gates, at 8 above). Structuralist analysis of Brussels compares well with Paris (Furter 2017b) and London (Furter 2018b).

7. Structured emblems and alphabets

Some calendars, emblems and alphabets have similar sounds, numerals (in alphanumeric sets), pictographs, determinants, and related myths; in sequences that could be directly compared to one another, and to typological features isolated in artworks and other media, indicating that the natural blueprint extends to all cultural media. Some sets have fewer characters, usually skipping one of the doubled types (see __ blanks in Tables VII B and VII C). Alphabets have often been compared to hour asterisms to trace supposed diffusion, but never in the context of archetype informing various media (see Babylonian Plough Stars decans in Furter 2018a).

Cretan Archanes seals could be sequenced by archetypal features. The sets are highly stylised, and apparently without secure traditional sequence or fixed total. Comparison to other Cretan media, via the mindprint model, could resolve the sequence. About 26 often reproduced features include abstract ‘determinants’ that may be subconscious former or current spring markers (see types 2, 3, 4). These may compensate for lack of spatial layout and polar features. The set may illustrate a calendar or some other cycle, yet both sets would reveal collective and individual subconscious inspiration in the culture, in the re-designer, and in copyists.

Table VII. Typology in some Cretan Archanes seals.

Type; Upper Image (features); Lower Image (features):

2 Builder; Shelter or Trap (maze); on Antelope (bovid).

3 Queen; Flower (spring); on Horse (neck), Snake (dragon).

4 King; Two S-shapes (twins); on Horse (equid).

5a Priest; Zebra or horse (equid? colour?).

6 Exile; U-shape (U-shape).

7 Child; Centaur? In ropes (rope).

7g Gal.Centre; Hills or abstracts (unfolding?)

9 Healer; Podium (pillar), Herb (heal), Bent (bent).

10 Teacher; Double-axe (staff) of Apollo (teacher), Snake (snake, heal), Staff (staff).

11 Womb; Staff or Wheat (crops), Plough? (furrow?); Vase (womb).

11p Gal.Pole; Flower (junction).

13 Heart; Purse or Hand or Heart (heart?).

14 Mixer; Honey? (energy?), Brewer? (transformation).

15 Maker; Leg (smite? rampant?).

Figure 7. Fourteen Cretan Archanes seals (after Sakellarakis et al 1997. Type labels and sequence by E Furter).

7.1 Structured Germanic runes

The conventional 18 runes have graphic and phonologic counterparts in the Latin alphabet. The six others making up the conventional set of 24 runes, derive from a North Italic alphabet in the first century AD (Looijenga 1997). However runes assumed their own sequence, and set of emblematic derivations, both now testable against archetypal typology. Runes are conventionally listed from F, Wealth (here type 1 B). The tables follow Latin convention from A 1 (type 14).

Table VII B. Typology in Semitic alphanumeric sets (after Goldwasser 2006), v 22 Germanic runes, v Hour decans (after Furter 2014).

Type; Sound Numeral; Rune (features); Hour decan

14 Mixer; A 1; Speech (jaw, limb-joint); Ursa Minor.

15 Maker; B 2; Bough, Family (sceptre, ancestor); Canis Min.

15g Gate; G 3; Gift (bag); Galactic Gate or Canis.

1 Builder; D 4; Sun (former spring); ____­_.

1 Builder B; F/V 5; Wealth (bovid); Hyades.

2 Builder; W/Ng 6; Hail (rain, cluster); Pleiades.

2c Basket; Z/Gw 7; ____; (Diphthong)(transit); Algol.

3 Queen; EH 8; Horse (neck); Pegasus.

4 King; TH? 9; Thorn, Hammer (spring); Pisces Cord.

4p Gal.S.P.; Y/R? 10; Tree (junction); Pegasus neck.

5a Priest; K 20; Flame (4 furnace); Aquarius latter.

5b Priest; L 30; Water (water); Aquarius prior.

6 Exile; M 40; Man (scapegoat?); Cygnus?

7 Child; N 50; Chariot (chariot); Sagittarius.

7g Gal.Centre; Xi 60; Constraint (junction); Serpens Cauda.

8 Healer; AY Y 70; Home (hearth, heal); Scorpius Sting.

9 Healer; P 80; Hearth (hearth, heal); Scorpius Antares.

10 Teacher; R? 100; Ride (9 trance); Bootes.

11 Womb; HD 90; Fork, Tyr (10 staff, arms), Star Spica.

12 Heart; S 200; Ship (interior); Argo.

13 Heart; T 300; Horn, Bull, Sun (ruler); Leo Regulus.

14 Mixer; U 400; Joy (honey?); Beehive?

15 Maker; PH 500; Couple (double), Spell (churn); Gemini.

7.2    Structured Mayan day hieroglyphs

The Mayan ‘month’ of 20 days, part of the Tzolk’in, 20×13=260 days, has its own set of emblematic ‘derivations’, now testable against archetypal typology. The 20-day birthday cycle is a powerful predictor of personality globally, independent of annual seasonal calibrators and of Western astrology. Mayan days are conventionally listed from Crocodile or Water (here type 3). The tables follow Latin convention from A 1 (type 14).

Table VII C. Typology in Semitic alphabets (after Goldwasser 2006); v 20 Mayan day hieroglyphs, Limbs, and Images (after Pinzon 1995); v Hour decans (after Furter 2014).

Type; Sound Numeral; Mayan hieroglyph (features); Limb, Image; Hour decan.

14 Mixer; A 1; Vulture (bird); Tongue, Spirals (polar); Ursa (polar).

15 Maker; B 2; Motion (churn, polar); ____; Ursa Minor (polar).

15g Gate; G 3; Knife (risk); mouth (joint), Skull?; Orion Club (junct).

1 Builder; D 4; Rain (storm); Eye, ____; Orion.

2 Builder; F/V 5; [Sun?]; ___; ___ [Mayan skip]; Hyades?

2c Basket; W/GN 6/7; Flower (cluster); Eye, _; Pleiades.

3 Queen; EH/Th 8; Croc (dragon); Chest, _; Cetus Tail.

4 King; TH? 9; Wind (field?); Lung (furnace), _; Pegasus.

4p Gal.S.P.; Y R? 10; House (junct, pillar); _; Pegasus legs.

5a Priest;   K 20; Lizard (reptile); Hip?, ___; Aquarius.

5c B.Tail; L 30; Snake-knot (reptile, weave); Genital, R/snake; Capr.tail.

6 Exile;  M 40; Frog (fish), Death (sacrif); Ear (bleat), _; Capr (fish, goat).

7 Child;  N 50; Deer (juvenile?); Ear, ______; Sagittarius.

7 Child B; Xi 60; Rabbit (juvenile); Foot (joint), _; Tail, Serp.Cau., Tail.

7g G.Cntr; AY 70; Water (junction); _, _; Galaxy (water).

8 Healer; P 80; __; __; __ [Mayan skip]; Scorpius Sting.

9 Healer; R? 100; Dog (canid); Foot, ____; Lupus.

9c Lid; HD 90; _____? (diphtong)(transit); __; Serpens.

10 Teacher; S 200; Monkey (arms); arms (arms), Lizard (arms); Bootes.

11 Virgo; T 300; Grass (crops); womb (womb); _; Spica.

11p Gal.P.; U 400; Reeds (junct); _______; Coma (hair).

12 Heart; PH 500; Ocelot (‘felid’); Foot, __; Leo retro.

13 Heart; CH 600; Eagle (bird, polar); Hand; __; Ursa.

8. Conclusion

Hundreds of examples confirm that the large, specific, layered, rigorous repertoire of global, subconscious, individual and collective behaviour, is measurable and testable in several cultural media. The archetypal structuralist model of direct, simplistic features, made complex by their inter-dependence, indicates that archetype eternally guides and bounds re-expressions in nature and culture. This model challenges the paradigm of culture as ‘conscious’, with ‘creative options’ that ‘evolve’; and challenges correspondence theories and diffusion theories in science and in popular culture. The largely unstated and untested general paradigm is common to human sciences, and thus likely to resist data, models and even evidence to the contrary (Thomas Kuhn 1966). Evolution is one of the archetypes eternally dominating human sciences, by analogy to individual and technological maturity curves; which actually depend on ecology, population density and specialisation. Apparently diverse and unrelated features, consistent across time and place, confirms that cosmology is part of archetypal expression in all media, not ‘degraded science’ as De Santillana (1969) and others tried to demonstrate by ironically invoking ‘devolution’ into the diffusionist paradigm. Popular anthropology is particularly fond of correspondences, diffusion and devolution based on various assumed golden eras. As members of polities, scientists have some individual and collective vested interests in maintaining illusions of ‘cultural differences’. But scientists are equally compelled to study our species as objectively as possible.

The often silent assumption that media illustrate one another, such as art ‘illustrating’ ethnography or ritual; or myth ‘collating collective memories of major or repetitive events’; or symbols or divination features ‘deriving from’ analogies; should take caution that studies of cultural content and ‘origins’ agree with conscious, rationalised views of crafters and users. There was no conscious model, nor paradigm, for mathematical order in culture, such as the sizes of civic populations (Zipf 1949), or consistent average frequencies of specific features. Perception, expression and possibly meaning itself, is now revealed as ‘wired’ to archetype; and hidden by conscious habits, and our inability to recognise quirky rules as consistent. The core content of culture was static, and is likely to remain so, despite conscious discovery and diffusion of its features. Our repertoire of innate behaviour indicates that archetype guides nature and culture at several levels of scale, across media ‘boundaries’.

The archetypal structuralist model also finds support in some natural structures, such as the periodic table (Furter 2016). The high level of detail demonstrated in compulsive cultural expressions, invite automation of subconscious individual and social behaviour. Stalemates between rival anthropology models (Endicott et al 2005; Turner 2009) could be resolved by study of archetypal behaviour.

We could not know archetypes’ origin, as Plato realised, but we could study her expressions to explore our individual and collective roles in integration and self-actualisation. Our cultural works serve more purposes than we consciously know. Their study requires scientific integration and maturity. Structuralist anthropology has some experience in ‘tacking’ between data sets apparently in ‘disunity’, across time, place and layers of consciousness, as advocated by Alyson Wylie (1989, after Bernstein). Human sciences could extend its scope to global, diachronic behaviour. An opportunity, and perhaps a pressing need in the humanities, is to recognise differences between core culture and localised ‘branding’, and to inform society undergoing unprecedented globalisation and ‘culture’ shock. As nations and cities faction and fraction due to rival socio-economic bonds, the humanities could raise knowledge or our collective subconscious impulses, and our need for minor polity differences. A small step from modelling cultures, to modelling culture, may offer a leap in human sciences applications, validity and relevance, and potentially in general understanding of our place within nature.

References

Boole, G, 1854 /2003. Laws of thought. Buffalo:  Prometheus Books

De Santillana G. and Von Deschend, H. 1969. Hamlet’s Mill: An essay on myth and the frame of time. Boston: Gambit

Endicott, K. M. and Welsch, R.L. 2005. Taking sides. Third edition. Iowa: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin

Furter, E. 2014. Mindprint, the subconscious art code. USA: Lulu.com

Furter, E. 2015a. Gobekli Tepe, between rock art and art. Expression 8. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2015b. Rock art expresses cultural structure. Expression 9. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2016a. Stoneprint, the human code in art, buildings and cities. Johannesburg: Four Equators Media

Furter, E. 2017a. Recurrent characters in rock art reveal objective meaning. Expression 16, June. Italy: Atelier Etno Expression 16, June. Also in Expression 2019; Message behind the image. Book 25

Furter, E. 2017b. Stoneprint tour of Paris. Stoneprint Journal 3. USA: Lulu.com

Furter, E. 2018a. ‘Babylonian Plough List decans’. http://www.stoneprintjournal.blog

Furter, E. 2018b. Stoneprint tour of London. Stoneprint Journal 4. USA: Lulu.com

Furter, E. 2018c. Culture code in seals and ring stamps. Stoneprint Journal 5. USA, Lulu.com

Goldwasser, O. 2006. Canaanites reading hieroglyphs. Egypt and Levant 16: 121-160

Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. 2009. Panarchy; understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington: Island Press

Harrod, J. B. 2018. A post-structuralist revised Weil–Lévi-Strauss transformation formula for conceptual value-fields. Sign Systems Studies, November. USA: Center for Research on the Origins of Art and Religion

Hays, H. R. 1958. From ape to angel. London: Methuen

Jung, C. G. and Jaffe, A. 1965. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Random House, p392-393

Kuhn, T. 1966. Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press

Levi-Strauss, C. 1973. From honey to ashes. Harper & Row

Levi-Strauss, C. 1955. Mathematics of Man. Paris: Bulletin International des Sciences Sociales 6:4.

Lewis-Williams, D., Pearce, D. 2012. Framed idiosyncrasy, method and evidence in the interpretation of San rock art. Johannesburg: SA Archaeological Bulletin 67, 75-87

Liritzis I. and Vassiliou H. 2003. Archaeo-astronomical orientation of seven significant ancient Hellenic temples. Athens: Archaeo-astronomy: the Journal of Astronomy in Culture, 17, 2003, 94-100

Looijenga, J. H. 1997. Runes around the North Sea and on the continent AD 150-700; texts and contexts. Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit van Groningen, doctorate

Neugebauer, O. and Parker, R. 1969. Egyptian astronomical texts 3; Decans, planets, constellations and zodiacs. USA: Brown University Press

Paget, R. F. 1967. In the footsteps of Orpheus. London: Robert Hale

Parry, E. 2012. Rock art of the Matopo hills. Bulawayo: Amabooks

Pinzon, S. 1995. Early history of Belize. Ambergriscaye.com/earlyhistory/glyphs. Belize: Casado.net

Ranieri, M. 2014. Digging the archives; orientation of Greek temples and their diagonals. Athens: Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol 14, No3, 15-27

Sakellarakis, Y. and Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. (1997) Archanes: Minoan Crete in a new light. Athens: Ammos

Temple, R. 2003. Netherworld. London: Century

Turner, T. S. 2009. Crisis of Late Structuralism. Perspectivism and Animism: Rethinking Culture, Nature, Spirit, and Bodiliness. Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America: Vol. 7: Issuse 1, Article 1

Wood, P. 2015. Ferguson and the decline in Anthropology. USA: National Association of Scholars, Jan 20

Wylie, A. 1989. Archaeological cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Bernstein’s options, beyond objectivism and relativism. USA: Philosophy of Social Sciences 19(1), March, 1-18

Zipf, G.K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. USA: Addison-Wesley

Categories
Mindprint the subconscious art code Structural art analysis using mindprint Structuralist analysis of miniature artworks

Henry Holiday’s Hunting of the Snark art has subconscious order

The nonsense limerick poem Hunting of the Snark demonstrates several ironies, apparent contradictions, and hidden meanings. The quest is an analogy for scientific exploration and British empire enterprise; both could be imagined in the dock on charges of Trespass, Libel and Contempt as in Barrister’s dream. Author Lewis Carroll (1876) is the pen-name of Oxford mathematician Rev Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (d1898), who also wrote maths papers and books, and was a deacon, but not a full priest. This post applies archetypal structuralist analysis to the Snark for the first time, to demonstrate how Henry Holiday’s illustrations subconsciously express apparently different, yet structurally standard versions of universal archetypal layers. The artist added Hope and Care (or ‘With’) to the crew of ten, probably from a subconscious compulsion to complete the minimum number of characters required to express archetype.

Britain, a legacy of Rome despite her abandonment in the Dark Ages of AD 400s to rival raiders and local kings such as Arthur, regained Roman culture after the Norman conquest. The eventual nation of shopkeepers, brokers, bankers and explorers feared disorder and chaos, as psychological defense against personal annihilation (after Kelly). Religion and science have taken turns in shoring up a sense of order. Bellman’s Rule of Three; character names all starting with B; jaunty rhyme and meter; and a tragic-comic format, all attempt to impose some order [15] and meaning on the apparent chaos of lefend. But motifs in legend, poetry and art is never random or meaningless, and usually recurrent (Thompson1928, 1961. Uther 2011. McCormic 2011). Rigorous analyses of three illustrations below demonstrate that many features of subconscious behaviour, perception, and meaning itself is now measurable in standard terms (see also ATU catalogue legends demonstrated in afterlife themes, in three posts on Oracle of the Dead, on http://www.stoneprintjournal.wordpress.com).

Nonsense style was also used by Thomas Hood; and in Gilbert and Sullivan musicals, such as Bad Ballads; and in early movies by Charlie Chaplin. Carroll was a satirist, and keenly aware of controversies between religion and science. Snarking once described a sound, perhaps of derision. Snarky once meant snappish, sarcastic, impertinent or irreverent; but recently back-formed again to mean mocking irreverence or sarcasm. The poem may have been inspired by the violent death of Carroll’s beloved uncle, Robert Wilfred Skeffington Lutwidge, inspector of asylums, by a violent patient (Torrey et al 2001), and other personal losses.

In the plot, a crew of ten tries to hunt the Snark, easily confused with the highly dangerous Boojum. Baker may symbolise the author, with his 42 boxes after Thomas Cranmer’s 42 Articles of religion, the last on eternal damnation. Baker finds a snark but vanishes in black ash, indicating that he found a Boojum, perhaps punished as Cranmer was burned; perhaps bafflement at finding laws of nature (Cohen 1995). Banker is attacked by a Bandersnatch, pays a ransom, but loses his sanity or logic.

Unwritten rules in nature and culture

Bellman, according to Carroll’s preface, follows obscure Naval Code, pathetically reading out Admiralty Instructions which none of the crew ever understood, “but fastened anyhow across the rudder”. Rule 42, the last, is ‘No one shall speak to the Man at the Helm,’ completed by the Bellman himself with ‘and the Man at the Helm shall speak to no one’. Thus Carroll indicates that the search for unwritten, inherent rules or laws of nature and numbers are part of his theme in Snark. Collective behaviour is indeed guided by a code that many sciences suspected, but no-one understood before 2010 (Furter 2014).

The present study of recurrent features in behaviour, to reveal archetype in nature and culture (Furter 2014; 2016), was inspired partly by the Mike Batt’s musical version of Hunting of the snark. In this idiom, from our own investigations and the bearings on the charts, now we could rise to remark that we think we may be gaining on the snark! There are hints of underlying structure in all media. Discovery that the subconscious expression of archetypal structure, or mindprint, could be measured and predicted, incidentally completes the quest for inherent order; and reveals that cultural identity is as universal as mathematics.

Henry Holiday pictured fables, allegories and church windows

Henry Holiday probably alluded to animals in a 1674 print of Aesop’s Fables, illustrated by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder (British Museum; Satires 1047, reg. 1868,0808.3286), around king William III with allegorical Religion and Liberty (after Prof L Wolsogen, L; Fig 4/4). Holiday discussed with the author Carroll (Dodgson) possible allegorical depictions of Care and Hope. Holiday was also a stained glass window designer at Powell & Sons (with many designs for American churches), and friend of Rossetti. Tigertail Associates hired artist George Gennerich to restore Holiday’s wood engravings electronically, and partly colorise them.

Holiday’s Banker’s Fate illustration may refer to Image-Breakers by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder; and to William Sidney Mount’s painting, Bone Player; and to a photograph by Benjamin Duchenne used for a drawing in Charles Darwin’s Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. These visual citations together demonstrate that art design never replicates other designs; yet the illustration demonstrates again that all complex designs (of more than eleven characters) express specific, complex, universal spatial grammar, beyond the conscious capacity of any artist to learn or fake. Snark’s sections are named Fits, a pun on fitting rhymes to syllabic meters and pages. Structuralist analysis of the formerly invisible five layers of regular, universal features in the artworks, and probably in the character list, now adds another meaning to ‘fit’; artists have to ‘rhyme’ with the inherent structure in meaning and spatial relationships.

Carroll’s Easter sacrifice tragedy

Carroll re-uses a setting, some creatures, and eight portmanteau words from Carroll’s earlier poem, Jabberwocky, in his children’s novel Through the Looking-Glass (1871). The poem is dedicated to a young girl whom Carroll met at Sandown on the Isle of Wight, which he saw as an island of three monsters, “where the Jabberwock was slain”. In the first edition, he included a religious tract; An Easter Greeting to Every Child Who Loves Alice, perhaps to disguise the dark undertone of the pointless expedition, melting identity, apparently unjust punishments of life, and annihilation. Easter Greeting explores innocence and eternal life through Biblical and Romantic allusions from William Blake and William Wordsworth. Yet Easter is a spring sacrifice ritual, thus also a tragedy. Among many legacies of the Snark, are a graph theory; Snark Island in India’s Bengal Bay; Boojum Rock in Andaman and Nicobar Islands; and the excellent but failed 2-m dollar West End musical by Mike Batt.

Motley crew; it takes all types to make a story

The Hunting of the snark crew is listed here by proposed archetypal numbers and the types they probably subconsciously express in Carroll’s text; all named starting with the letter B:

2 Builder; Billiard-maker (builder), skillfull (hero). Or 9; 2v9.

2c Basket; Bandersnatch or subconscious, takes ransom and sanity (monster).

3 Queen; Butcher, math and geology, kills (sacrifice) only beavers.

4 King; Care or ‘With’, a Pandora, added by the artist.

5 Priest; Hope or Britannia, added by the artist.

6 Exile; Bellman, leader (exile).

7 Child; Broker, appraises goods, Jewish.

07g Galactic Centre; ??

9 Healer; Bonnet-maker (lid), hood-maker. Or 2; 2v9.

10 Teacher; Banker holds the crew’s money (balance, metal), loses logic.

11 Womb; Hope? or Britannia’s womb.

13 heart; Beaver (water-work), savious, makes lace.

14 Mixer; Hope? or Britannia.

15 Maker; Barrister, settles arguments.

15g Galactic Gate; Boots, cobbler (‘bag’), invisible or in a barrel (‘bag’).

Axial centre; Snark, of five signs, invisible, confused with Boojum.

04p Pig in dream, accused of deserting its sty.

11p Baker, wedding cakes, courageous, forgetful, vanishes.

Midsummer and Midwinter; Boojum, deadly illogic [3 12], invisible, confused with snark since it moves with time.

Dominant type 5 Priest, of assembly and ritual

Dominant general themes in Holiday’s illustration of Lewis Carroll’s Hunting of the Snark crew or Britannia parade, are revealed by extra features of type 5 Priest, typical of assembly, hyperactivity, ritual, ceremony (here including speeches in the text), sashes (robes) and water (implied by the naval crew); and its opposite type, 13 Heart, typical of weapons (pitchforks and a pitch fork, or tuning fork), war (implied colonisation), bravery and water-work (here implied by a beaver and anchor). This type seems appropriate to part of Rev Carroll’s own identity as a Deacon, and to the conscious theme of colonial and scientific exploration, including vague unease of venturing into foreign territories and somewhat taboo fields of science. Some authors have suggested a theme of search for happiness; or of USA independence and its motto of ‘pursuit of happiness’ as a tragedy for Britain.

Secondary general themes in the Snark parade illustration, include types 5c Basket Tail, typical of oracle, revelation (a vague monster or treasure), and maze (uncharted excursion); and 9c Basket Lid, of hats, instruments, enforcement, and metal (pitchforks, blunderbuss, anchor, sword); and 10 Teacher, of raised arms, staffs (pitchforks, anchor, blunderbuss, tripod), hunt-master (Bellman), guard, market (implied colonisation), council and school (Barrister’s toga); and type 15 Maker, of rope, order (names starting with B), bag, mace, sceptre (empire), doubling (Barrister and Banker resemblance), face (personalities as on coin ‘heads’, obverse of Britannia as ‘tails’). Missing from the illustrations are Boots the invisible cobbler, who may be a subconscious snark; and Baker, missing since attempting to unravel a conundrum; and Boojum, perhaps incomprehensible ultimate reality or archetype itself. This list below reports the characters in the parade illustration, in the standard structuralist anthropology archetypal cycle format.

Henry Holiday; Hunting of the snark parade illustration for Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson, mathematician, 1876). Woodcut by Joseph Swain. Colorised by George Gennerich for Tigertail Associates. Archetype labels and axial grid by E Furter.

Type Label; Parade character (noting archetypal features):

2 Builder; Bonnet-maker? with a fork.

3 Queen; Butcher? (sacrifice) with a chopper?

4 King; Care? in cloak.

5 Priest; Hope? or Britannia (assembly) as emblem (ritual), with anchor (hyperactive, water) and sword (weapon, of 13 opposite); her right eye.

5c Basket Tail; Bell (time, of 6v14). And anchor blade.

6 Exile; Hope? or Britannia, near the axial centre (ingress) with anchor (U-shape); her left eye. And Bellman with bell (U-shape).

7 Child; Anchor point (eyeless, rope implied), as emblem (mace).

7g Gal.Centre; Banker’s top hat (vortex). And anchor point (juncture).

9 Healer; Banker (metal) carrying (bent forward, strong) blunderbuss (metal), tripod stand (pillar) and pitch or tuning fork (metal, trance), a pun on pitchfork; his right eye.

9c Basket Lid; Banker’s glasses (disc, ‘balance’).

10 Teacher; Banker (balance, metal) or Broker (trade), with pitch-fork or tuning fork (metal, ‘balance’) raised (arm up), tripod (staff) and blunderbuss (hunt-master, guard, metal); his left eye.

11 Womb; Midriff (womb) of Hope? or Britannia (water, law), implied British lion (felid).

12 Heart; Beaver (water-work), OFF THE GRID.

13 Heart; Barrister’s chest (heart), carrying a pitchfork (weapon, war).

13c Basket Head; Barrister’s beard (weave).

14 Mixer; Anchor ring, NO EYE, nearer the centre (ingress).

15 Maker; Barrister (order) with wig (ropes), in toga (bag), carrying pitchfork (mace), striding ahead (rampant), with a large face (face), resembling Banker (doubled).

Axial centre; Unmarked as usual.

4p Gal.S.Pole; Britannia’s ear?

11p Gal.Pole; Anchor’s cross-bar ruing (juncture). And sea-star (limb-joints) at Beaver’s tail (limb-joint). And Beaver, a lace-maker (rope is more typical of 7g) carrying a microscope.

Midsummer; Britannia’s front shoulder (limb-joint).

Midwinter; Hope’s hip (limb-joint). These solstice markers are on a horizontal plane. The polar triangles place midsummer in Gemini-Taurus, implying spring and the cultural time-frame in Age Pisces-Aquarius, confirmed by the two types at top centre.

The snark crew parade analysis score is 45/68 archetypal features; 12/16 axial points; 4/4 c-type sector features; 2/2 g-gate sector features; 4/5 polar markers; 1/2 planar or cardinal orientations; 1/1 correlation with the Age, or Age prior to the work; 2/2 general themes; thus 71/100, minus 1 extra characters off the axial grid; total 70%, in the upper half of the average range of 40-80%. All structuralist features of expression are universal, and subconscious to artists, architects, builders, crafters and members of any culture.

Butcher and beaver calculate a song in Holiday’s snark art

Structuralist analysis of this illustration happens to co-incide with the theme of Butcher transcribing and calculating a Jubjub’s song, “or the sound of pencil on slate”, for his willing student Beaver. Carroll’s limerick is partly themed on a quest to find natural laws, identity and meaning. His tale has no resolution other than confirming baffling inexplicability, but his mathematics papers, and the present study, have better news. Snark episode illustrations, characters, and parts of the plot subconsciously express archetypal and thus natural and cultural order. In this context, the text acquires much more order than the rhyme, meter and plot provide.

“The thing shall be done! Bring me paper and ink, the best there is time to procure. The Beaver brought paper, portfolio, pens, and ink in unfailing supplies: while strange creepy creatures came out of their dens, and watched them with wondering eyes. So engrossed was the Butcher, he heeded them not, as he wrote with a pen in each hand, and explained all the while in a popular style, which the Beaver could well understand.”

The ‘strange creatures’ crowding into the story and the illustration repeats a motif familiar in religious art; temptation by delights and torments, usually shown with St Anthony (see a post on Oracles of the Dead Part II, on www.stoneprintjournal.wordpress.com). The illustrator was a church window designer by trade, thus well versed in religious art.

Dominant general themes in Henry Holiday’s illustration for the scene of the Butcher as author, artist and mathematician, include these types:

[] 4 King, of squat posture (here of nine characters), twins (here dragons, frogs, pigs, cats), rectangle (music boxes, books);

[] 6 Exile, of ingress (Beaver and Butcher near the centre), double-head (dragons, frogs, pigs, cats), reptile (dragons, frogs); and its opposite, 14 Mixer, of ingress (crowding in a narrow vale), transform (music to math), angel (winged rat, dragons, pigs), reptile, dance (of flying pigs);

[] 10 Teacher, of raised arms (here all twelve characters), metal (brass instruments, boxes), ecology (beasts), school (Butcher teaching Beaver math), carousel (dancing beasts);

[] 15 Maker, of order (books), doubled (dragons, pigs, frogs, cats), reptile, winged;

[] 2c v9c, 5c v13c Baskets, of instruments (music, writing), container (music boxes, ink-well), hat (Butcher’s beaver hat), or secret (Jubjub song and math score).

This artwork is remarkable for its general themes expressing the three known features that are ambiguous for being optional part of three or four types: reptile; winged; doubling (though it tends to take different forms in types 4, 6, 15). In addition, twinning and doubling is present in many visual citations of other artists as Kluge (2017) demonstrated. But canid of type 9, 10, 14, 15; and equid of types 3, 4, 5, are absent here. The known ambiguities are inherent in nature and culture, and appear at fixed average percentages, thus they are as archetypal and measurable as the unambiguous features, and the five layers of structure in spatial expression are.

Henry Holiday; Hunting of the snark Butcher calculating a jubub song, in the illustration for Lewis Carroll (Dodgson 1876). The woodcut is by Joseph Swain, later colorised by George Gennerich for Tigertail Associates. Archetype labels and axial grid by E Furter.

Type Label; Maths music character (noting archetypal features):

2 Builder; Pig trumpeter A in orchestra (cluster).

2c Basket; Music box B (instrument, container) churned (arm-link) by dragon B.

3 Queen; Bellman (school).

4 KingA; Dragon B (twin), winged (‘bird’), on rock (squat) with music box (rectangle).

4 KingB; Rat flying (bird), squeezing ink.

5a Priest; Dragon (reptile, winged) with music box (hyperactive). These boxes may refer to religious articles of faith, as of Thomas Cranmer (implied priest).

5c Basket Tail; Music box A (container).

6 ExileA; Butcher (sacrifice), near the centre (ingress); inner eye, as bard, in beaver hat (sacrifice).

6 ExileB; Butcher (sacrifice), near the centre (ingress); outer eye (‘double-headed’).

7 Child; Young (juvenile) frog’s bag (bag, eyeless) with newspaper (unfold).

7g Gal.Centre; Bonnet (vortex?) on cat A.

9 Healer; Cat C tearing (strong) a bonnet.

9c Basket Lid; Books (reveal) on a war treaty (enforce) and absurdity.

10 Teacher; Ink bottle B (school).

11 WombA; Beaver’s (water) midriff (womb), bearing ink (library).

11 WombB; Beaver’s (water) midriff (womb), bearing ink (library).

13 Heart; Frog’s chest (heart), drilling (rounded, weapon).

14 MixerA; Frog (reptile); inner eye.

14 MixerB; Frog (reptile); outer eye.

15 Maker; Pig with wings (winged) playing flute (‘sceptre’).

15g Gal.Gate; Tuba (juncture, vortex).

Axial centre; Unmarked as usual.

4p Gal.S.Pole; Butcher’s upper fingers (limb-joints).

11p Gal.Pole; Beaver’s elbow (limb-joint).

Midsummer; Pig A’s hoofs (limb-joint).

Midwinter; Butcher’s jaw (limb-joint) holding quill (juncture).

The solstice markers are on the horizontal plane. The polar triangles place midsummer in 14-15 or Cancer-/Gemini; implying spring and the cultural time-frame in Age 3-2 or Aries-Pisces, confirmed by the top central position of types 3 and 4.

The analysis score in the Butcher’s math scoring illustration, is 36/68 archetypal features; 16/16 axial points; 6/4 c-type sector features; 2/2 g-gate sector features; 4/5 polar markers; 1/2 planar or cardinal orientations; 1/1 correlation with the Age, or Age prior to the work; 2/2 general themes; thus 68/100, minus 3 extra characters off the axial grid; total 65%, just above the universal average of 60%. Structuralist features of expression are universal, and subconscious to artists, architects, builders, crafters and members of any culture.

Barrister’s courtroom trial dream scene

Barrister’s courtroom trial dream illustration by Henry Holiday has only nine characters, thus fewer than eleven, and is considered a minimalist artwork, wherein some structuralist compromises, and fewer than 60% of the known archetypal features are expected. Some characters and some structuralist features are doubled, as in his Butcher music and maths lesson scene.

Main general themes in this courtroom illustration are types 10 Teacher, of arms up posture (here of five characters), hunt-master (prosecution), disc (two wigs, dram fog), council (court); and type 11 Womb, of womb (here or the sleeping Barrister), law (trial).

Henry Holiday; Hunting of the snark courtroom trial scene illustration for Lewis Carroll. Woodcut by Joseph Swain. Colorised by George Gennerich for Tigertail Associates. Archetype labels and axial grid by E Furter.

Type Label; Court character (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; NO EYE, Keys (cluster, implied twist, tower, build, maze). And; NO EYE, Prosecutor’s left hand holding rolled (twisted) charge sheet (book).

2 Builder; OFF THE GRID Jailer (implied tower, build).

2c Basket; Judge’s wig (weave, shoulder-hump, hat). And bench (throne).

3 Queen; Barrister or judge (school?), representing the Crown (queen).

4 KingA; NO EYE, Prosecutor.

4 KingB; Advocate A.

5a Priest; Advocate B In tails (tailcoat head) judging (judge, assembly).

5c Basket Tail; Advocate C, between axes, as c-types are.

6 Exile; Advocate D, far from the centre (egress).

7 Child; Accused in dock (rope?).

7g Gal.Centre; Fog end (water).

8 Healer; Prosecutor’s right hand, in cloak (trance? See Tarot trump 9, Hermit in hood).

9c Basket Lid; Fog middle (lid) of a dream (reveal).

10 Teacher; Prosecutor (‘hunt-master’) with arms up (arms up) or prop (staff) holding wig (disc, council).

11 WombA; Sleeping Barrister’s (law) midriff (womb), under fog (water).

11 WombB; Sleeping Barrister’s (law) midriff (womb), under fog (water).

12 Heart; Sleeping Barrister’s chest (heart).

13c Basket Head; Sleeping Barrister’s wig (head, hat, weave).

14 Mixer; Sleeping Barrister dreaming (transform).

15 Maker; NO EYE, Hand of Bellman ringing (order, smite).

15g Gal.Gate; Bellman’s hand (limb-joint), lifting fog from sleep to waking (juncture).

Axial centre; Prosecutor’s bow knot (juncture).

4p Gal.S.Pole; Advocate A’s talking jaw (limb-joint).

11p Gal.Pole; Sleeping Barrister’s elbow (limb-joint).

Midsummer; Charge of Trespass (juncture).

Midwinter; Advocate B’s demonstrating fingers (limb-joint).

The solstice markers are on a horizontal plane. The polar triangles place midsummer in 15-1 or Gemini-Taurus; implying spring and the cultural time-frame in Age 4-5 or Pisces-Aquarius. Pisces is confirmed by the top central position of types 4A and 4B.

The analysis score in the snark courtroom scene is 21/68 archetypal features; 14/16 axial points; 8/4 c-type sector features; 3/2 g-gate sector features; 3/5 polar markers; 1/2 planar or cardinal orientations; 1/1 correlation with the Age, or Age prior to the work; 2/2 general themes; thus 53/100, minus 2 extra characters off the axial grid; total 51%, in the lower half of the universal average range of 40-80%. Structuralist features of expression are universal, and subconscious to artists, architects, builders, crafters and members of any culture.

  • See a list of currently known optional archetypal features in other posts.

Some sources and references

Carroll, L. 1876. Hunting of the snark. London; McMillan

Cohen, M. N. 1995. Lewis Carroll: A Biography. Macmillan

Furter, E. 2014. Mindprint, the subconscious art code. USA: Lulu.com

Furter, E. 2015a. Gobekli Tepe, between rock art and art. Expression 8. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2015b. Rock art expresses cultural structure. Expression 9. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2016. Stoneprint, the human code in art, buildings and cities. Johannesburg: Four Equators Media

Furter, E. 2017a. Recurrent characters in rock art reveal objective meaning. Expression 16, June. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2017b. Stoneprint tour of Paris. Stoneprint Journal 3. USA: Lulu.com

Furter, E. 2018a. ‘Babylonian Plough List decans’. http://www.stoneprintjournal.blog

Furter, E. 2018b. Stoneprint tour of London. Stoneprint Journal 4. USA: Lulu.com

Furter, E. 2018c. Culture code in seals and ring stamps. Stoneprint Journal 5. USA, Lulu.com

Furter, E. 2019a. Rennes le Chateau stoneprint tour. Stoneprint Journal 6. USA, Lulu.com

Furter, E. 2019b. Ayahuasca artists express universal structure. DMT Times; Archetypes

Gennerich, G. 2004. Hunting of the snark illustrations restoration and coloration. Los Angeles; Tigertail Associates.

Jung, C.G. & Jaffe, A. 1965. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Random House

Jung, C.G. 1945. Philosophical tree. In Collected Works 13: Alchemical Studies

Kluge, Goetz. 2017. Nose is a nose is a nose. Knight Letter 99, December, p30-31

McCormick, C.T.  2011. Folklore, an encyclopaedia of beliefs, customs, tales, music and art. Denver, Colorado; ABC-CLIO

Neugebauer, O. & Parker, R. 1969. Egyptian astronomical texts 3; Decans, planets, constellations and zodiacs. USA: Brown Univ Press

Roche, G.T. 2018. Temptation of St Anthony; on chemical mysticism. Academia.com

Thompson, S. 1928, 1961. Motif index of folk literature. Ellis ref GR 67.T52. http://www.StorySearch

Torrey, F, and Miller, Judy. 2001. Invisible Plague: The Rise of Mental Illness from 1750 to the Present. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press

Traveler, The. 2009. DMT Nexus. https://wiki.dmt-nexus.me/Hyperspace_lexicon

Uther, H.J. 2011. Types of International Folktales: A Classification and Bibliography. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica

Zipf, G.K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. USA: Addison-Wesley

Categories
How to identify mindprint types and structure in art Mindprint the subconscious art code Structural art analysis using mindprint

The mindprint model of archetype in culture, update 2019

The five subconscious, structured layers of expression globally, are (a) typological characters with specific optional features; (b) type sequence, clockwise or anti-clockwise; (c) axial grid between eyes or focal points of pairs of opposite types; (d) three pairs of polar junctures, implying three planes of expression; (e) orientation of polar pairs vertical or horizontal to the ground-line or a cardinal direction, co-incidental with the seasonal time-frame of the local culture.

Types could be labelled after any popular set, such as species, myths or months. Generic labels, such as social functions, avoid the false impression of diffusion from one particular medium or culture. Correspondence theories are often misled by recurrent archetypal features, or by inevitable cross-references between media and cultures, into assuming diffusion, and ignoring the innate roles of nature in culture.

Mindprint or stoneprint model of character types, in their peripheral sequence, as pairs of opposites forming an axial grid of eyes, with five polar points of limb joints or junctures.

Characters expressing the types always have their eyes (except a womb at 11, and a heart at 12/13; or interior focal points in built sites), on an axial grid, formed by standard pairs (1v8, 2v9, etc). Our works also express two ‘galactic’ polar points (4p v 11p); and two galactic crossings (7g v 15g); and three polar points: Midsummer or Celestial Pole (cp), Midwinter or Celestial South Pole (csp); and Ecliptic Pole at the axial centre. Polar points are not on eyes, but on limb joints (or junctures in built sites). Four of the types could be double, as they are in the figure (1v8, 2v9; and 5a v12, 5b v13); or single (2v9 and 5v13 only); thus the total is usually twelve, fourteen or sixteen. Some other pairs may also be doubled in complex artworks or built sites. The axial grid always confirms the peripheral sequence.

This post is an extract from Stoneprint Journal 6; Rennes le Chateau stoneprint tour, Lulu.com, $10. Order the guide here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/edmond-furter/stoneprint-journal-6-rennes-le-chateau-tour/paperback/product-23969009.html

Here is the January 2019 update of typological features, and their global average frequencies.

Axial graph of percentages of the seven most common features, of the minimal twelve types, and four border types. Adjacent types 1/2, 5a/5b, 8/9, and 12/13 share features at nearly the same frequencies, thus their data are currently combined. These may be differentiated in further study.

Type label; recurrent features of characters in any artwork, built site, or craft set, in peripheral sequence, with average frequencies:

1 /2 Builder; twist 44%, cluster 23%, bovid 19%, bird 19%, tower 18%, build 14%, sack 10%, hero 10%, book 8%, rain,

2c Basket; weave 25%, container20% instrument 20%, shoulder-hump 20%, hat 15%, throne 10%, snake 10%,

3 Queen; neck-bend 31%, dragon 19%, sacrifice 17%, queen 13%, school 12%, spring 10%, fish 6%, ram 4%,

4 King; squat 30%, rectangle 28%, king  22%, twins 13%, sun 12%, bird 10%, fish 8%, furnace 8%, field 5%,

4p Galactic South Pole; limb-joint 67%; juncture 17% (spout 12%, stream, speech,

5a/5b Priest; varicoloured 37%, priest 34%, hyperactive 33%, tailcoat-head 32%, assembly 30%, horizontal 28%, water 24%, heart 24%, large 24%, bovid 20%, winged 14%, invert 12%, reptile 10%, sash 8%, equid, ascend,

5c Basket-Tail; weave 16%, tail 14%, U-shape 10%, contain 8%, herb 4%, oracle,

6 Exile; in/egress 58%, horned 44%, sacrifice 30%, small 14%, U-shape 13%, double-head 12%, caprid 8%,

7 Child; rope 24%, juvenile 24%, bag 22%, unfold 13%, beheaded 10%, chariot 8%, mace 6%, off-grid,

7g Galactic Centre; limb-joint 38%; juncture 34% (throne, altar, spiral, tree, staff); path/gate 18%; water 16%,

8/9 Healer; bent 28%, strong 28%, pillar 28%, heal 22%, disc 14%, metal 8%,

9c Basket Lid; disc/hat 27%, instrument 25%, reveal 16%, hump 15%, weave 8%,

10 Teacher; W-shape 44%, staff 36%, hunt master 24%, guard 20%, metal 14%, market 14%, disc 12%, council 11%, snake 8%, ecology 8%, school 6%, wheel,

11 Womb; womb 88%, wheat 15%, water 14%, tomb 11%, interior 8%, library 8%, law 5%, felid 5%,

11p Gal. Pole; limb-joint 64% (hand 12%, elbow 10%, foot 12%, etc); juncture 24% (door 12%, corner, etc),

12/13 Heart; heart 83%, felid 42%, death 34%, rounded 21%, invert 14%, weapon 11%, war 9%, water-work 8%,

13c Basket-Head; oracle 14%, head 14%, weave 8%, ship,

14 Mixer; in/egress 43%, time 28%, tree 20%, angel 15%, bird 11%, antelope 10%, dancer 8%, felid 8%, reptile 4%,

15 Maker; churn 44%, rope 28%, order 27%, rampant 26%, bag 20%, mace 16%, doubled 16%, face 12%, canid 12%, sceptre 11%, smite 8%, reptile 8%, winged 8%,

15g Galactic Gate; junction 30% (river 10%); limb-joint 12%,

The five polar features also have global average frequencies. The axial centre is usually unmarked at about 60%, or on a limb-joint or juncture. Midsummer (cp) is on a limb joint 54%, or juncture 24%. Midwinter (csp) is on a limb joint 46%, or juncture 24%. One of the polar axles is on the horizontal plane 50%, or vertical plane 12% (or on a north-south meridian or east-west latitude in a built site).

Polar markers usually place midsummer on or near type 12, 13, 14 or 15, implying spring and the cultural time-frame 90 degrees earlier (in seasonal terms), in Age Taurus1, Taurus2, Aries3 or Pisces4. The spring type is often confirmed by some kind of prominence of the character expressing type 1, 2, 3 or 4.

The general theme of a work is indicated by features that are prominent, or shared by three or more characters. Works or sets express about 60% of the already known 100 optional, measurable, recurrent features. The identified features are not of conscious design. Structural or ‘grammatical’ layers of expression are subconscious to artists, architects, builders, crafters, and members of any culture. Rigorous average frequencies and consistency through ages, also rule out nurture. The full repertoire appears in the oldest examples, in Ice Age art of about BC 26 000 (Furter 2014), ruling out accumulation of idiosyncratic ‘ideas’, and of localised cultural ‘frameworks’, as some anthropologists and rock art archaeologists believe (Lewis-Williams and Pierce 2012).

Use this link to buy Stoneprint Journal 6; Rennes le Chateau stoneprint tour, Lulu.com, $10: http://www.lulu.com/shop/edmond-furter/stoneprint-journal-6-rennes-le-chateau-tour/paperback/product-23969009.html

== Extract from STONEPRINT Journal Series. Supplement to Stoneprint, the human code in art, buildings and cities. Order the book, or journal editions; or contribute articles, on edmondfurter at gmail dot com, or +27 (0)11 955 6732, Four Equators Media, Johannesburg. See also http://www.stoneprintjournal. blog  www.mindprintart.wordpress.com  www.edmondfurter.wordpress.com

Back editions at $12;

1 Pictish beasts

2 Crop circles are natural artworks

3 Stoneprint tour of Paris

4 Stoneprint tour of London. 24pp, $18. Also from Lulu.com

5 Culture code in seals and ring stamps. Also from Lulu.com

6 Rennes le Chateau stoneprint tour, 20pp. Lulu.com, $10, http://www.lulu.com/shop/edmond-furter/stoneprint-journal-6-rennes-le-chateau-tour/paperback/product-23969009.html

Categories
Mindprint the subconscious art code

Introduction to Mindprint, the subconscious art code

In artefacts and artworks, where archaeo astronomers see ancient star maps, archaeologists see cultural traditions, and anthropologists see initiation secrets, appear a standard axial grid of archetypes, always in the same sequence.

[UPDATE 2016: Mindprint demonstrated our individual expression of archetype in art. The book laid the foundation for revealing our innate, subconscious, collective expression of archetypal structure, in buildings, villages, temples complexes, pyramid fields, geoglyphs and cities. Our collective subconscious is revealed in Stoneprint, with 400 pages and 130 illustrations, placing subconscious behaviour in the context of five sciences and several cultural crafts. Visit www.stoneprint.wordpress.com for extracts from this important new book.]

The subconscious art code or human imprint also appears in our eye, hand and body reflexology points, and in cosmology. Constellations are only myth maps, but myth, and therefore constellations, also bear the imprint of the structure of our perception.

All inspired artists, in the Stone, Ice, Bronze and Iron Ages; Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Celts, Mayans, Vikings and moderns, subconsciously express mindprint, our eternal artefact.

The core content of art, myth and culture around the world is identical. Beneath thin layers of flamboyant styling and learning lies a surprisingly standard structure, beyond the conscious control of artists, mystery schools or secret societies.

All inspired artworks containing more than ten figures express a standard, involuntary sequence of types. Artists are not aware that their eye -hand -mind co-ordination expresses a universal structure.

Each figure type is characterised by one or two of its optional attributes and by its relative position. The types are spaced as paired opposites around an irregular ellipse, and precisely anchored to a standard axial structure, hinged on a geometric centre with tri-polar elements.

The structure emerging in the 200 illustrations and in the statistical analysis, is a visual grammar or art code, never before described in art history, archaeology, psychology, esoterica or popular crafts. The book is written as popular archaeology, but it has several implications for academic research.

Archetypes could be labelled in mythical, seasonal or astrological terms, yet none of these sets are origins of archetype. All are equally partial and imperfect expressions of pre-existent, universal structure.

The underlying structure of nature, culture and perception is largely subconscious, not fully verbalised by artists or viewers. Now these subconscious meanings are rendered partially conscious, and accessible by identifying relevant features, and thus types, and by using a list of the average frequencies of occurrences of the features of typology, and using the axial grid structure.

The axial geometric structure in the positioning of the eyes of the sequence of figures is made visible by drawing a set of lines that always cross in one point. This structure is visually disguised by some radial distortion (a sunburst shape); variety of subject and style; and two standard deviations, to a heart as a kind of spiritual eye, and to a womb as a kind of unborn eye.

Visual expression arises from nature, reflexology, and the collective subconscious. Learning, borrowing and idiosyncratic features do not affect the options, nor their average frequencies. The structure of perception and expression, or archetype, is inherent in all forms of figurative arts and crafts, including engravings, murals, frescoes, spiritual, religious, political and portable artefacts, professional and amateur art; and building sites (see http://www.stoneprintjournal.blog). Mindprint in ‘story’ paintings on buffalo skin are among the many indications that archetypal structure also enables myth, legend, perception, and to some extent, events.

The ‘readable’ elements in visual expression reveal a similar structure in myth, literature, cosmology, calendric cycles and nature, confirming the role of what philosophy and psychology describe as archetype.

Myth likewise uses characters differentiated by stock attributes, actions, motivations and episodes, and also expresses natural, social and cultural structure.

Art is less constrained by conscious cognitive processes than myth, which is bound by verbal, acoustic and dramatic grammar. Visual art is more direct, more impulsive, more compulsive to artists and viewers, more layered, and closer to inspiration.

The subconscious imprint, referred to as mindprint, tupos (imprint), art code, human subtext, Furter grid or archetypal art code, is predictive and testable. Practical proof of the persistence and prevalence of mindprint in art is illustrated in 200 of the 400 artworks and rock art works listed in the Index (some of the further 600 demonstrations are posted on this site, and the three related sites).

Major, testable, conceptual, as well as minor attributes of types, each with their average occurrences, invariably marked by the standard axial grid, are listed in Mindprint (2014, Lulu.com), in the Introduction and in the Statistical test chapter.

Type 5 Priest or Aquarius, for example, is varicoloured (44%), horizontal (30%), in active posture (31%), and among the four large chracters (24%) on average in all artworks [the list of known features, and known average frequencies, was extended by new discoveries in Stoneprint, and in editions of Stoneprint Journal, in 2018, and 2019; see extracts on http://www.stoneprintjournal.wordpress.com].

Type 10 Teacher or Libra has an arm or arms in V- or W-shape (53%) and holds a staff (34%) on average in all artworks.

Based on overwhelming statistical and geometric evidence of the collective, universal, subconscious sequence of optional attributes in inspired art, and of the conceptual relationships between the optional elements of each type, the tables of myths, icons, constellations and concepts in this study are proven.

They describe the standard structure of visual expression, as an involuntary art code arising from subconscious inspiration.

Additional variant expressions of each type are also considered, for example type 15 Maker or Gemini as a rope (33%) and/or bag (21%), and/or creator (such as Ptah), and/or smiting (16%), and/or doubled as in the concept of Gemini (8%) [however twins is a feature of type 4 King or Pisces], and/or canine, and/or with a hip wound, and/or in a boat shrine (of minor percentages). Identification of types rises above 90% if these variants (discussed in the Attributes section, Tables and captions) are considered together.

(Excerpt from the Introduction to Mindprint, the subconscious art code, by Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com, 266 pages; 100 pages of context and explanation, 200 illustrations. The book is on mail order from Lulu in the USA at $29 plus $8 postage ($37, about R370), and at presentations in South Africa at R250. Order directly from Lulu, not from other websites that may add their costs to the price.

Categories
Mindprint the subconscious art code

What is mindprint, the subconscious art code

An Australian Kimberley Gwion 'Sashes' area rock art image (Bradshaw Foundation) of dancers, one with a long-necked mask, with mindprint labels and axes by Edmond Furter.
An Australian Kimberley Gwion ‘Sashes’ area rock art image (Bradshaw Foundation) of dancers, one with a long-necked mask, with typology labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter.
Mindprint or stoneprint model of character types, in their peripheral sequence, as pairs of opposites forming an axial grid of eyes, with five polar points of limb joints or junctures.

Mindprint is sixteen recurrent character types, each expressing a cluster of optional archetypal features, and each feature at a specific fixed frequency globally; with the eyes or focal points of pairs of opposite forming an axial grid; surrounding five polar points of limb joints or junctures in specific sectors.

The eyes or focal points of typological characters are replaced by a heart and a womb, in adjacent positions; at type 12 and/or 13 Heart, and type 11 Womb. Characters form an irregular and ragged oval, at varied radii. The spatial structure is analogous to a flattened cosmic sphere of three planes (ecliptic, galactic and celestial), with polar features of the underside or ‘south’ visible as limb joints in certain positions.

One or both the ‘celestial’ poles is incidental with the position of the midsummer and midwinter solstices, as it was in one of the last three astrological Ages (or four mindprint Ages, since Age Taurus is doubled). Celestial poles move in an inward spiral arc around the ecliptic pole, analogous to precession, and the Age of the artist’s or builders’ culture, usually the Age before the work.

Four of the types are optionally doubled or single; types 1 and/or 2 Builder or Taurus, are opposite types 8/9 Healer or Scorpius; and types 5a/5b Priest or Aquarius, are opposite types 12/13 Heart or Leo. Type 5 repeats is number in the first magnitude series (some cultural media express two or three cycles of mindprint, where 5:20 and 5:21 are differentiated by their numbers). Thus the highest type number in the first magnitude is type 15 Maker or Gemini, however there are sixteen types, since label 5 is initially repeated.

Known magnitudes of the sixteen types are 0:15, 1:16, 2:17, 3:18, 4:19, 5:20, 5:21 (where the sequence changes to sequential numbers), 6:22, etc (from where the sequence is validated against atomic numbers in the periodic table, and against features of the I Ching, though not against the variant number sequences of divination sets).

The entire arrangement of five layers of structure, is subconscious and compulsive to artists, and independent of conscious and conventional attributes, design grids, perspective lines, and ‘conceptual’ meanings and conscious symbolism. Conscious ‘logic’ or rationalisation offers various layers of optionality to artists, builders and cultures, but the subconscious archetypal features remain standard in all cultures, areas and ages.

Mindprint was discovered in 2010, and its types, attributes, geometry, polar structure and correspondence with myth, emblems, the Tarot deck and astronomy (particularly hour decans or ‘lunar’ calendars) were assigned, numbered and tabulated by Edmond Furter, and published in the art analysis, anthropology and archaeo-astronomy book Mindprint, the subconscious art code, in August 2014 (Lulu.com).

After Furter, ED, 2014. Mindprint, the subconscious art code. Lulu.com

Terminology and data has since been updated in Stoneprint, and in Stoneprint Journal editions.

 

Update of typology labels, features, and global average occurrence (January 2019)

This table also serves as a standard format for testing and reporting the identification of subconscious, archetypal features in artworks, rock art works, building sites, or other media.

Site /Artwork,,,, expresses ,,,,

This ,,,,, in ,,,,, is noted for ,,,,,.

General themes in the work include types ,,,,

In any artwork, building site, or sequential craft set (calendar, gods, divination list, alphabet, emblems), characters form an axial grid by their eyes or focal points, and express about 60% of these recurrent feature clusters, with each feature at a measurable universal average frequency

Type; Character (archetypal features with average frequencies):

01 /02 Builder; twist 44%, cluster 23%, bovid 19%, bird 19%, tower 18%, build 14%, sack 10%, hero 10%, book 8%, spring 8%, maze 8%, pit 8%,

02c Basket; weave 25%, container 20%, instrument 20%, shoulderhump 20%, hat 15%, weapon 15%, throne 10%, snake 10%, secret 10%, planet 7%;; armlink 50%, leglink 20%,

03 Queen; neckbend 31%, dragon 19%, sacrifice 17%, queen 13%,school 12%, spring 10%, fish 6%, ram 4%, pool,

04 King; squat 30%, rectangle 28%, king  22%, twins 13%, sun 12%, bird 10%, fish 8%, furnace 8%, field 5%,

04p Galactic South Pole; limbjoint 67%; juncture 17% (spout 12%, stream, speech, spit),

05a /05b Priest; varicoloured 37%, priest 34%, hyperactive 33%, tailcoathead 32%, assembly 30%, horizontal 28%, water 24%, heart 24%, large 24%, bovid 20%, reptile 10%, winged 14%, invert 12%, sash 8%, judgement 8%, weapon of opposite 7%, felid of opposite, equid, ascend,

05c Baskethead; weave 16%, tail 14%, U-shape 10%, container 8%, tree/herb 4%, oracle(maze), spirit (ka), spheres, route, horned (of 6), disc,

06 Exile; ingress/egress 58%, horned 44%, sacrifice 30%, small 14%, U-shape 13%, doublehead 12%, caprid 8%, reptile 6%, tree 4%, disarmed,

07 Child; rope 24%, juvenile 24%, bag 22%, unfold 13%, beheaded 10%, chariot 8%, mace 6%, off-grid,

07g Galactic Centre; limbjoint 38% (foot 26%); juncture 34% (throne, altar, line, spiral, tree, staff); path/gate 18%; water 16%,

08 /09 Healer; bent 28%, strong 28%, pillar 28%, heal 22%, disc 14%, smelt 8%, ritual 6%, bag 6%, head 4%, canid 4%, ram 4%, scorpion,

09c BasketLid; disc 27% (hat 15%, lid 12%); instrument? 25%, reveal 16%, hump 15%, planet 10%, weave 8%, enforce 7%, pillar  6%, snake 5%, metal 4%;; armlink 54%, leglink 20%,

10 Teacher; W-shape 44% (arm/s 28%), staff 36%, huntmaster 24%, guard 20%, metal 14%, market 14%, disc 12%, council 11%, snake 8%, ecology 8%, school 6%, carousel 4%, canid 4%, horns 4%, fish 4%,

11 Womb; womb 88%, wheat 15%, water 14%, tomb 11%, interior 8%, library 8%, law 5%, felid 5%.

11p Gal. Pole; limbjoint 64% (hand 12%, foot 12%, elbow 10%); juncture 24% (door 12%),

12/13 Heart; heart 83%, felid 42%, death 34%, round 21%, invert 14%, weapon 11%, war 9%, waterwork 8%, angel 4%,

13c BasketTail; oracle 14%, head 14%, hat/lid 10%, weave 8%, tree 6%, tail 4%,

14 Mixer; ingress/egress 43%, time 28%, tree 20%, angel 15%, bird 11%, antelope 10%, felid 8%, dancer 8%, reptile 4%, fish 4%, canid 4%,

15 Maker; churn 44%, rope 28%, order 27%, rampant 26%, bag 20%, mace 16% (weapon 12%), doubled 16%, canid 12%, face 12%, sceptre 11%, smiting 8%, reptile 8%, winged 8%,

15g Galactic Gate; juncture 30% (river 10%); limbjoint 12% (jaw 8%),

The axial centre or ‘Ecliptic pole’ is unmarked 59%, limb joint 24%, juncture 14%.

Midsummer or ‘Celestial pole’ is a limb joint 54%, juncture 24%.

Midwinter or ‘Celestial South Pole’ is a limb joint 46%, juncture 24%.

Solstice polar orientation is on the horizontal 50% /vertical 12% plane, or north-south meridian or east-west latitude.

Polar markers place ‘summer’ in Leo /Cancer /Gemini, thus ‘spring’ and the cultural time-frame in Age Taurus /Aries /Pisces, confirmed by a prominence.

The general theme of dispersed features is type __

Structural layers of expression are subconscious to artists, architects, builders, crafters, and members of any culture.

An analysis could be scored as __/75 archetypal features; __/16 axial points; _/5 polar markers; _/1 planar or cardinal orientation; _/1 correlation with the Age, or Age prior to the work; _/2 general themes; thus __/100, minus __ extra characters off the axial grid; total __%. The average analysis score is 60%, in a sigma range of about 0.4 (40% range), from 40% to 80% of known features. The scoring formula may change if more features are isolated.

Mindprint book summary

The introduction explains how to read the illustration labels (see a post and comments on www.edmondfurter.wordpress.com), and reveals the types and structural features in art. It also notes some aspects of their disguise.

Chapter A demonstrates six examples of the typological sequence, and explains structural sets in nature, myth, grammar and our subconscious.

Chapter B demonstrates the structure in our iris and bodies, and explains our structural perception, inspiration, consciousness, psychology and disguise.

Chapter C demonstrates the structure in our hands, and explains the co-incidence of structure in our bodies, culture, events and literature.

Chapter D demonstrates cosmic structure and explains structural cosmology, astronomy and astrology.

Chapter E demonstrates cosmic polar structure and explains structural time, Ages, archaeo astronomy, planets and spherical doubling.

Chapter F demonstrates artistic structure in a famous painting by Pierro de Cosimo (see below), and explains structural symbolism, artistic functions, initiation and esoterica.

Chapter G demonstrates a rock art painting process, and explains structural inspiration and compulsive expression.

Chapter H tests mindprint in two Egyptian decanal sets [Narmer and Dendera; see below], and explains conscious aspects of expression, as well as the Tarot trump sequence numbering.

Chapter J lists the attributes and concepts of the sixteen types, reduces these to tables, offers a format for artistic typological data, formulates a statistical test, tests 170 artworks, lists and explains the results. It also demonstrates how to identify visual types and archetypal structure in art, speculates on the possibility of prior discovery, and lists the few inherent ambiguities among some types.

Chapter K compares scientific and esoteric paradigms, illustrates natural ‘art’, and speculates on the implications of the discovery of mindprint for some sciences and crafts.

Chapter L demonstrates mindprint in 200 artworks (the book contains 214 examples in total), grouped by their dominant themes, and ordered to compare rock art against schooled art. Some notable details are explained.

The postscript explains how the visual types and structure were found. (see below)

Mindprint index

  • How to read the illustration labels
  • The typological sequence and axial grid
  • The subconscious artefact and its disguise
  • [A] The figure sequence in our art
  • Comparing our semi-conscious sets
  • Animals, Myth, Grammar, Subconscious layers
  • [B] The structure in our eyes and bodies
  • Our eyes flash Boo; Oto-visual emissions
  • The vortex of visual inspiration
  • Gestalt and Occam
  • Psychological structure
  • [C] The structure in our hands
  • Our inner and outer structures converge
  • Archetype dressed as culture
  • Literate structure in a Mishnah
  • [D] The structure in our cosmos
  • Our astronomical sets
  • The galactic and polar cross
  • Astrological structure
  • 40 [E] The three poles of time
  • 42 Our calendric sets
  • 43 Ages in art
  • 46 Age Aries, Age Pisces, Age Aquarius
  • 50 The typological spiral chart
  • 52 [F] The structure in our art; Honey to mead
  • 54 Conscious and subconscious meaning in art
  • 57 Mystery and initiation
  • 58 Instant culture, art analysis, doubled spheres
  • 62 [G] The layers in our expression
  • 64 Digging through paint layers
  • 67 The double life of decans
  • 68 Decans on the Narmer palette
  • 70 Decans in the Dendera zodiac
  • 72 The Tarot trump sequence
  • 73 Compulsive inspiration and expression
  • 75 [J] Holistic types 1 to 15
  • 79 Typological tables
  • 82 Statistical test of artistic types
  • 84 Statistical test results
  • 87 How to identify types and structure in art
  • 88 Commission impossible
  • 88 Duplications and conventions
  • 89 Conscious recognition is elusive
  • 91 Ambiguous types
  • 93 Scientific and esoteric paradigms
  • 96 Nature is also an artist
  • 97 Esoteric structure
  • 98 Implications for sciences and crafts
  • 99 [L] Mindprint and sixteen themes illustrated
  • [Note; Type labels in the first edition used mythic constellation and hour decanal names, with the warning that typology is also in myth and strology, but does not arise from any media. Type labels have since been updated to generic social function labels; and the four half-types or Basket types have since been defined and demonstrated.]
  • 100  1 Taurus Auriga, Orion; Rain diviner
  • 110  2 Taurus Pleiades, Perseus; Rainmaker
  • 118  3 Aries Andromeda; Moon queen, dragons
  • 130  4 Pisces Pegasus; Sun king, Sun twins
  • 134  5a Aquarius Pegasus; World baptist
  • 148  5b Aquarius; World spirit
  • 160  6 Capricornus; Pan
  • 164  7 Sagittarius; Bag
  • 170  8 Scorpius Ophiuchus; Giant snake holder
  • 180  9 Scorpius; Giant in trance
  • 182  10 Libra Bootes; Lord of the forest
  • 188  11 Virgo; Womb
  • 198  12 Leo Crater; King inverted
  • 212  13 Leo Ursa; King’s heart
  • 224  14 Cancer Ursa Minor; Time angel
  • 232  15 Gemini; Creator and rope churner
  • 240  15 Gemini Canis; Creator wounded
  • 250 How mindprint was discovered
  • 253 Acknowledgements, About the author
  • 254 Terminology
  • 257 Index of rock art tested, Index of art tested
  • 265 Graphics sources, Sources, References.

(Excerpt from Mindprint, the subconscious art code, by Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com)

 

==== Comment from David Allen April 2015;

Thank you for the opportunity to meet you and to listen to your talk. What you said has sent me back to the drawing board concerning my knowledge of archetypes.

What had the most impact for me was your reference to the fact that archetypes, and even culture itself, are not some artificial “construction” born of this reality, but come from a pre-existent reality that “was” before the “big bang”.

The way you supported this contention by showing how virtually one single visual pattern is repeated (with some minor variations) through all works of inspired art (I think your use of the distinction “inspired” was essential here) stretching from as far back as the Ice Age into the modern era, across many nations, cultures, religions, belief systems, continents, and throughout history, and how it can be traced in the heavens, served to emphasise this point particularly strongly for me.

Although the idea of a “pre-existent reality” is not new to me, I have found almost no support for it. If anything I have come across only deep and virulent criticism of it and so have kept an open mind on the subject. Maybe it is a sign that I need to hang out with a better class of reading material.

I found your support of this notion very pleasing because it confirmed something that always made intuitive sense to me. It will give me much food for thought and reflection in the coming weeks and months because it will feed into, and influence to some extent, much else that I am interested in.

But probably the most important revelation was that your talk has shown me how much I still have to learn and how much work awaits me in terms of now having to unpack and discard much of what I have taken to be “true”, and then to refresh my conceptual foundation and belief system concerning a number of important topics.

I begin the task of reading and absorbing your book today. -David Allen.

Categories
How to identify mindprint types and structure in art

How to identify archetypes and structure in art

Finding mindprint in a work of art is as simple as finding correspondences to any archetypally complete set or sets of about sixteen (twelve to twenty) items, such as pantheons (lists of gods), myth cycles, epics, emblems, lunar mansions, trumps, historic or fictional characters, constellations, heraldic devices, lyrics, or animals.

Researchers should tack characters in art to sets that they are familiar with, and use the mindprint axial grid and tables for confirmation (see the post What is mindprint, on this website. See Mindprint, the subconscious art code, by Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com). Here is a shortcut method to finding the basics of the five layers of the archetypal art code;

[] Identify a likely periphery of figures in a roughly elliptical arrangement.

[] List the figures in their circular sequence, by any distinctive attribute, such as a posture, season, function, species, or device.

[] Provisionally tag the list or the artwork, with likely type numbers, such as 10 Teacher  for a figure with arms up or a staff, 12 or 13 Heart for a felid, 1 or 2 Builder for a bovid or tower, 5 Priest for varicoloured, skin paint or a hyperactive posture.

[] Tag figures notably ingressed or egressed towards or away from the centre, as 6 Exile or 14 Mixer.

[] Tag a pregnant figure as 11 Womb; and an adjacent major figure as 12 or 13 Heart (usually with an exposed chest), and the adjacent figure on the other side as 10 Teacher.

[] Infer a clockwise or anticlocwise sequence, and provisionally complete the labellling.

[] Count the number of eyes (for example 17), assume the lower even number (for example 16), subtract two (for example 14), skip half of this number (for example 7) between eyes, and draw tentative axes between each pair of likely opposing eyes.

[] If three or more axes cross at the same point, find the likely 11 Womb, and a likely 12 or 13 Heart, and redraw errant axes by not using their eyes (unless their eyes also find counterparts across the axial centre).

[] If three or more peripheral figures remain unaccounted for, assume a higher equal number (for example 18), and repeat the test with higher numbers.

[] Resolve the sequence by splitting up or combining the major doubles (1 /2 Builder, 5a/5b Priest, 8/9 Healer, 12/13 Heart).

[] Complete all the possible axes. Connect the equator from eye to eye (with the two exceptions).

[] Find one or two polar markers between 11 Womb and 12 Heart, or between 4 King and 5 Priest, near the equator (not near the centre). These poles are often on limb joints.

[] Find a polar marker nearer the axial pole, on or near the 15 Maker, 14 Mixer, or 13 Heart axis; which is often a limb joint, perhaps a jaw, vertical or horizontal from the axial centre or from one of the galactic poles. Connect this marker to the galactic pole to form a polar triangle (or if there is a marker on the opposite side, connect it to the galactic south pole).

[] Mirror the polar triangle on the other side of the ecliptic pole. Polar markers are not always expressed. Infer the inspirational date (spring) from the type that precedes the polar axle (midsummer) by an ideal 90 degrees (approximate, not measured on the distorted grid).

[] Apply the set of labels, one to each figure, and the four structural points, in sequence. Note that there is a choice of two labels (/) at the four major types if they are represented by only one figure (typical if the total is only twelve or fourteen);

1Builder 2Builder 2cBasket 3Queen 4King 4p
8Healer 9Healer 9cLid 10Teacher 11Womb 11p

 

5aPriest 5bPriest 5cTail 6Exile 7Child 7g
12Heart 13Heart 13cHead 14Mixer 15Maker 15g

 

cp csp ? ?

The axial centre or ‘Ecliptic Pole’ is unlabelled to avoid clutter.

[] Half-types (2c Basket v 9c Lid, 5c Tail v 13c Head) are usually off the axial grid, but within their sectors, designated by the axes of the two types that flank each of them.

[] On a separate page, list the type numbers, with basic distinctive features or characters found in the artwork, to compare to other artworks, mindprint statistics, stories, myths or typological sets.

This structure applies to all artworks, in all cultures, in all ages, due to the structure of nature, perception, expression, and cultural media. Mindprint also applies to myths and legends, but it is difficult to extract to a subtext, due to typical fluctuation between characters, places, episodes, and time. In art, the time-slice of the story stands still, and the composition could be verified against the original, or reproductions in catalogues, books and electronic galleries, such as tourist image sites.

See a standard format for testing and reporting structural art or building site analysis, in the post on ;What is mindprint’ on this website.

 

Categories
Mindprint art examples

Mindprint on the Narmer palette front

The Narmer palette front demonstrates subconscious expression of archetypal structure in a decanal set, in stock Sumerian and Egyptian pre-dynastic style. Here is the standard list of the types, with the characters in this artwork, in seasonal sequence from the former spring point, with its analogous hour decan (after Furter 2014; Mindprint).

Type label; Character, (archetypal feature); Decan

  • 03 Queen or Aries; Spouted pot (bent neck); Cetus Tail.
  • 02 Builder or Taurus; Large star (spring?); Pleiades.
  • 01 Builder or Taurus; Sandal-bearer (twisted); Orion.
  • 15 Maker or Gemini; Hathor cow frontal (face); Ursa Minor.
  • 14 Mixer or Cancer; Catfish hammer and chisel, far from the centre (egress), Y-shaped (tree); Ursa on Cancer on Hydra head.
  • 13 Heart or Leo; Horus falcon (raptor); Leo Minor?
  • 11p Galactic Pole; Horus hand (limb-joint); Coma Berenices.
  • 11 Womb or Virgo; Horus abdomen (womb). And an Asiatic marsh subject; Crater?
  • 10 Teacher or Libra; King’s brother’s genitals and hand (bent neck, of 3 opposite); Bootes.
  • 09 Healer or Scorpius; Defeated enemy (twisted, of 2 opposite); Corvus?
  • 08 Healer or Scorpius; Ribbon (snake); Serpens.
  • 07 Child or Sagittarius; Prisoners’ hands (rope); Cygnus?
  • 06 Exile or Capricornus; Prisoner (sacrifice), near the centre (ingress); Piscis Austrinus?
  • 05 Priest or Aquarius; Pond (water); Pegasus Square.
  • 04p Gal.S.Pole; Heel (limb joint) of twin (typical of 4); Cetus?
  • 04 King or Pisces; Heel (typical of 4p) of king (king).
  • The celestial pole marker is on the king’s genitals or shoulder (limb joint), confirmed by the vertical plane of the work. These markers place ‘midsummer’ in Cancer, thus ‘spring’ and the cultural time-frame in Age Aries or just prior.
  • The general theme on the reverse of the palette is type 3 Queen or Aries, typical of dragons.

The palette carries the same figures, and nearly the same sequence of features, on both sides. On the front, the characters are in a court or festival context, centered on type 15 Maker or Gemini as a smiting, ordering, re-creating pharaoh. Several optional links flip the sequence between the two sides, in the ‘transparent’ method also used in some Egyptian murals.

On the palette’s reverse side, type 13 Heart or Leo is a dwarf, symbol of a client culture paying homage. The dwarf resembles a figure in Queen Hatshepsut’s Punt colonnade, perhaps a Khoe Queen of Sheba.

Mindprint types and structure on the Narmer palette rear (Edmond Furter). The artefact is discussed in more detail among illustrations themed on type t3 t18 Aries in the book.
Narmer palette rear, with standard structuralist labels and axial grid. The artefact is discussed in more detail among other illustrations themed on type 3 Queen or Aries in the book.

The dwarf’s function and conceptual role is as important as the tribe he or she represents. On the subconscious level, the royal figure and heart of type 12/13 Heart or Leo are expressed in a foreign but compliant leader from the interior that feeds the Nile. Some dwarfs are seen as rainmakers (Tressider; Watkins Dictionary of symbols). Empire needs flattery by tribes with apparently semi-human features or languages, considered more in touch with animals and nature, and thus used as rainmakers, herbalists, and fertility or defensive spell casters.

Bushmen and Khoe or Nama (born of occasional pre-Bantu and pre-colonial admixtures) fulfilled these functions to migrating Iron Age African Bantu tribes, and to emergent mixed Korana, Griekwa and Amatola bands in South Africa. They served white settlers even during the systematic genocide and cultural extinction of Bushmen by regional masters such as the Zulu, Dutch and British.

Categories
Mindprint art examples

Mindprint in De Cosimo’s Discovery of honey

Types 8 Healer as a giant tree stump face, hosting a bee colony, with satyrs and people collecting honey and brewing mead (Pierro De Cosimo; Discovery of honey. Typology labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter).

Most characters in the artwork, as in all artworks, are identified by some archetypal features (gender, posture, function, implements or relative position), confirmed by the position of their eyes on an axial grid of opposite pairs.

Type label; Character (noting archetypal features); analogous hour decan:

1 Builder or Taurus; A satyr kid below an adult hand, recalling the goat kids of Artemis; decan Auriga.

2 Builder or Taurus; Crouching (twisted) leader, with a mirror or ladle (rainmaker); decan Orion.

3 Queen or Aries; Wielder of bellows or hammer, instruments of sacrifice (sacrifice); decan Triangulum.

4 King or Pisces; A male, with hive cakes or an implement of two rectangles (rectangle); decan Pegasus.

5 Priest or Aquarius; Priest (priest), prominent (large), with a tuning fork (U-shape, of type 6). Of human appearance, positioned between satyrs and women with human items; decan ?

6 Exile or Capricornus; Boy (child, of type 7), with only lower legs of a goat (Pan); decan Capricornus tail knot.

7 Child or Sagittarius; A centaur, more animal than human; decan Sagittarius.

7g Galactic Centre; Spring or pool (water, juncture); decan ,,,,

8 Healer or Scorpius; Trunk (pillar) mouth, hive of honey (healer, and trance induced by lowered blood pressure and buzzing bees); decan Ophiuchus, Snake Holder.

10 Teacher or Libra; Arm in V-posture (arm/s up), with herbs (staff?); decan Bootes.

11 Womb or Virgo; A midriff (womb); decan Spica.

12 and 13 Heart or Leo; Two chests (heart, heart); decan Ursa and Leo.

14 Mixer or Cancer; Eyes of the types 12 Heart and 11 Womb characters (mixture); decan Hydra head? This type is one of the general themes in the work, of satyrs or goat-people (mixture), mead (brew, transform), and supposed evolution (time).

15 Maker or Gemini; Bacchus (churn of bodies or souls), carrying a passenger (doubled). Axis 15 continues to another doubled figure, a satyr carrying a companion (doubled. See a jackal abducting a sheep in a paradise parody by Cyril Coetzee; T’Kama Adamastor).

Characters in all artworks express optional features, with some minor structuralist imperfections. Here type 7 Child or Sagittarius has his back turned, more usual of adjacent 8 Healer, decan Ophiuchus (which here is combined with type 9 Healer or Scorpius). Type 3 Queen or Aries has it axis not on its eye, but on its hand holding a bellows or hammer, which is a kind of bag or formling, more typical of the types flanking the four galactic corners. The overall sequence and structure remains clear.

‘Cosmic’ equators

The ragged oval or characters is analogous to the Ecliptic Equator in cosmology. The outline in complex works often includes some line economy, uding a continuous line, as here between the eyes of types 1, 15 and 14.

The two ‘Galactic’ Poles (4p and 11p), imply two ‘galactic’ equators, usually on a series of limb joints (here marked by thin, oblique semi-ovals), always crossing the typology outline or ‘ecliptic’ equato between 1-15 and between 7-g. The two ‘galactic’ equators overlap in the interior, and continue around two different ‘hemispheres’ as two exterior lobes. These two equators often divide compositional groups, as here they divide the culture group of people, v the nature group of satyrs.

Subconscious inspiration and conscious composition always overlap, yet artists are not aware of using attributes, postures, a figure sequence, eyes or limbs in the service of any detailed or standard structure. The five layers of cultural expression is inherent in the materials, themes, perceptions and ‘grammar’ or ‘DNA’ of human nature.

Polar triangles in art

The galactic pole (type 11p, or pG) is always near the equator, between types 12 and 11 (decan Crater, Grail); usually on a limb joint, here on the shoulder of a crawling figure, perhaps drunk with mead and thus relevant to grail and elixir themes.

The celestial pole (pC) is usually on a limb joint near the axial centre, and on or near the axis of the current or recent summer solstice, thus near axis 13, 12, 14 or 15. Here the celestial pole is on the shoulder of a satyr mother, between 14 and 15, where the celestial pole was in Age Aries late; but her elbow marks an earlier Age (of a perceived natural and cultural paradise) and her jaw (often a polar point) marks Cosimo’s forthcoming (now current) Age Pisces-Aquarius.

The ‘galactic south’ pole, 4p or pGs, is always between axes 4 and 5, but not always marked. Here it is on the jaw (limb joint) of an extra character (identified on an eye in error, before the role of limb joints was statistically confirmed).

The ‘celestial south’ pole on the hip of type 3 Queen or Aries tags the inspiration as Age Aries late, or Age Pisces early, at the time of the perceived formation of De Cosimo’s Christian culture.

Inspirational dating is a subtle geometric, mythical, conceptual and iconographic aspect of cultural expression, demonstrating the depth of the holographic structure in artistic inspiration. Even gifted nature spirits such as De Cosimo, on par with the best artists and rock artists in the world by any definition, did not consciously know mindprint, and could not fake it.

Both sides of a flat sphere

Mindprint structure is analogous to a sphere, imagined from above the sun, and simultaneously from above the earth. Armillary spheres, the basis of time and navigation instruments such as astrolabes, also express space and time by these two apparently contradictory perspectives. In addition to the dual ‘angelic’ perspective from infinitely far above (which is north in archetype, as it is in convention), the mirrored perspective from the south is included in cultural media and expressions. A model of perception requires parts of two armillary spheres, the northern one flared out and cut generously around its equator to retain zodiac and southern decan asterisms (see the cosmology image in another post); as well as the complete southern galactic equator. The southern hemisphere is cut stingily to avoid zodiac duplication, but its mirrored view of the galaxy is retained partly inside the ‘squashed’ centre, and partly on the flared rim outside the equator of characters.

Thus artworks contain two armillary sets, of three poles and five equators each. The central poles appear as one point, since they are viewed or ‘squashed’ along their own axle, revealing that culture is spatially ‘projected’ on the ecliptic plane, leaving the celestial and galactic equators oblique. Celestial equators are not shown in structuralist analyses, for the sake of simplicity.

There are no degrees of difficulty in the miracles of nature, perception and cultural expression. The resulting myth map differs from astronomical maps in reducing the celestial pole (of daily rotation) to a minor role; to focus on the ecliptic plane (of yearly orbit).

Categories
Mindprint art examples

Mindprint and decans in the Dendera zodiac

The Dendera round zodiac ceiling demonstrates the subconscious imprint in a quadruple concentric set of constellations, signs, decans and determinants (Louvre, and in a plaster cast replacement at Dendera in Egypt. Typology labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter). The four sets each follow the eye positions of the sixteen types as usual. These sets are uniquely vortexed relative to one another. The spring and polar section is inset for clarity.

A spring equinox baboon marker sits back-to-back with type 3 Queen or Aries or decan Triangulum, as a slaughtered quarry. Their tails or entrails together reach down to the Aries ram tail, which in turn hangs down to the type 4 King or Pisces ribbons (where the Cetus Whale tail is figured in myth, and in the sky).

A baboon is a movable spring feature, expressing precession (as noted in an obscure Greek tradition) among the types, thus not a type itself, nor a constellation or decan. It marks one or both of the equinoxes, and also finds expression in one of Thoth’s manifestations, resolving some of his emblematic ambiguities.

The spring sun or moon is under the baboon, displaced from 3 Aries to just on the 4 King or Pisces side of the tails, which also extend the Pisces latter ribbon, or forms a third ribbon (see the Cosmic myth map in another post). The spring sun or moon determinant (pictorial sign) is repeated at 4 Pisces constellation, as a character holding a spring sacrifice, formerly a feature of type 3 Queen or Aries, subconsciously dragged into the Age Pisces position in this work of dynamic subconscious structure.

The opposite sun or moon or lunar node is at type 9 Healer or Scorpius, but pictured in type 10 or decan Libra, confirming the usual ambiguity among precession markers and decans (Furter 2014; Mindprint, chapter on hour decans, noting how the night hour markers starting point change through the year, and their emblematic ambiguity).

The four major constellations are doubled in the Dendera round zodiac, as they are in all complex artworks and building sites (Furter 2016) worldwide. All sixteen typology axes are uniquely, subconsciously vortexed in order to link the eyes of northern, ecliptic and southern decans, to galactic or determinant characters in the border (see similar but linearly regimented decans in the Dendera crypt lotus bulb carving, in the book Mindprint).

Stereotypical zodiacs usually do not express the archetypal sequence, nor the axial ocular (eye to eye) structure. The elegant vortex here indicates inspired structuralist detail, beyond the needs of astrology or astronomy (see a vortex in rock art in the book Mindprint, Chapter 7).

This ceiling is useless to astronomical observation or calibration, but a timeless record of our collective need to imprint and review subconscious structuralist calibration, enabling the collective therapy of expressing who, what, where, when and how we fit into nature, and ultimately into archetype. Thus mindprint is revealed as subconscoius ‘graffiti’ behavioru, largely independent of our conscious motives, and of our semi-conscious mechanisms for using cultural goods to bond, appropriate spiritual goods, and exploit rival polities. All cultures use the same core content in their apparently ‘different’ ethnography (this theme is expanded in the 2019 paper Blueprint, on http://www.edmondfurter.wordpress.com).

Some authors read the Dendera zodiac as having been partially re-carved to add Greek and Roman constellations to Babylonian and Egyptian constellations, and to update the poles to precession, thus accounting for ‘generally misplaced’ features. But all these sets are now revealed as subconsciously but rigorously placed on a vortexed axial grid. The solution here indicates a single, inspired design, matched to nearly all the constellations. The only slightly displaced characters, probably due to design constraints, are type 13 Heart or Leo; the polar Ursa bull foreleg, 7g-15g and 4p-11p axes, and polar Draco Hercules Taweret hippo (the latter perhaps just differently constituted, an issue unresolved in Egyptology).

Spherical grid distortion arises from moving the perspective, or projection point of an axial grid, without moving the grid. However projectional distortion is seldom symmetrical or uniformly rotated, as this grid is.

There is no hint in archaeology, art history or esoterica of the conscious use of a vortex axial grid elsewhere. The stroke of inspired genius to express precession by dragging either the peripheral sequence backward, or the polar sequence forward, is probably subconscious, as all 100 known features on the five layers of structure are.

The sets of poles are expressed by the position of certain limb joints, as usual. The axial centre or ecliptic pole is on the jaw (limb-joint) of the Whippet jackal on a plough (Ursa Minor); itself on a bull foreleg (part of Draco, more often also Ursa Minor, or Ursa in older artworks).

11p Galactic Pole is on a staff foot (limb-joint). 4p Galactic South Pole is on an extra fish jaw (limb-joint), figuring constellation Pisces prior fish on conscious iconic level, but expressing type 4p decan Cetus (Whale) Spout on the subconscious level.

Midsummer or Celestial Pole is on type 15 Maker, Gemini, or decan Ursa Minor, as the jaw (limb-joint) of a tiny rear-facing canid, reclining on the other side of the bull foreleg, which is a slightly misplaced type 13 Heart, Leo, or decan Ursa Major (continuing its earlier structuralist function in Age Taurus as celestial polar calibrator).

Midwinter or Celestial South Pole or autumn axis is on the jaw (limb-joint) of the Taweret hippo (who more usually figures the axial centre or Ecliptic Pole). Her polar womb is on the type 10 Teacher or Libra axis, a potential precessional ambiguity in this transitional expression; however the type 10 decan is Bootes, and its genital star Arcturus is on the eternal ecliptic grid directly above the Virgo womb star Spica. Subconscious behaviour has no need to resolve apparent conscious ambiguities.

The celestial pole or midsummer over Gemini, tags ‘spring’ and the time-frame of the inspiration to Age Pisces. Most artworks express a previous time-frame. The Celestial South Pole or midwinter over 6-7, places spring in Age Aries-Pisces, confirming the spring sun or moon entering Pisces, and the archaeological dating as Ptolemaic, in the early centuries AD.

  • After a chapter in Mindprint, the subconscious art code, by Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com. Updated January 2019.
Categories
How to identify mindprint types and structure in art

How mindprint, the subconscious art code, was discovered

Themes, moods, rhythms, styles and fads in poetry and lyrics could each be reduced to a distinctive format among a limited range of modes or ‘grooves’, and compared across a gulf of millennia to identify the character of the inspiration.

So it seemed to a literature student raised on Homer and art rock. My first thesis, Urban poets and prophets, directly compared some poems and ‘art rock’ lyrics. “Once tuned in to a particular inspiration, a poem writes itself”, I announced to a literature lecturer, who in return rattled off a list of authors, such as Mallarme, who have already said that.

“We should study poem cycles for their mythic structures, and study writing techniques only for how they support thematic structure,” I announced to a poetry lecturer, who suggested that I should study philosophy or psychology instead.

My next thesis explored the structure of phonemes (speech sounds) and the limits of meaning as revealed by their artistic use in what I took to be lyrical ‘modes’, bent to similar structural rules as parts of speech. Each phoneme’s pronunciation and perception is influenced by the succession it occurs within.

We perceive the distribution and succession as a whole, a kind of auditory speed-reading that support some meanings and obscure others. The grammar lecturer replied that I should consider an anthropology or psychology course.

From a combination of Freudian psychology and myth, including Fraser’s apparently fragmented Golden Bough, emerged vague but persistent impressions that some elements of the human psyche and culture were structured, compulsive and somewhat mechanistic, but partly subconscious and expressing spiritual logic beyond conscious definition. Jung’s depth psychology I had to read in my own time, it was not part of the psychology course.

An eventual career in journalism taught me that living myth and legend, or myth in the making, dictates which news, history and even technical magazine content would sell. No story is as difficult to write and to read as one containing new thought patterns or new assumptions. News gradually revealed itself as the sceptic’s definition of history; a set of fictions we agree to tell one another.

Invisible structure dogged my writing, and my hobby as a musician. Underneath conscious behaviour and even small talk, lie elements of a bigger conversation that I sought out in Egyptology, archaeology, astronomy, sacred sites, Theosophy and art.

Archaeology Society field trips and aerial photography flips over extensive kraal (cattle corral) cities in South Africa offered me a visual framework for interpreting cultural artefacts as shaped by individual and collective economy (paths of least resistance), using ready physical material and symbolic spacing. Culture seemed also to ‘write itself’.

The idea that visual art express stock themes, just as poems, lyrics, phonemes, huts and music do, gradually rose to prominence as I studied supposed astronomical artefacts, to find archetypes instead.

Rock art images often include swallow mud nest forms, swifts in half-human shape, water and a vortex in the sky. These birds, sometimes half-fish and mistaken as ‘mermaids’, are what archaeologists label ‘swift people’ (see theme 1 Taurus16), but archaeological literature fails to address the rest of the ensemble, or visual ‘mode’, resembling predictions of the 9/11 2001 New York terror attack.

An alchemical emblem by Basil Valentine of the 1300s (type 1:16 Builder/Sacker or Taurus) contain the same features that I had linked to swift people in rock art, and in Tarot trump 16 (Tower struck by lightning), several years before the iconic event of November 2001. Valentine’s alchemical emblem shows a high-rise city, on an island across a bridge, on fire, with a tract above it being torn up or struck by lightning. The medieval caption speaks of national pride, meddling in foreign affairs and mixed messages coming home to roost, in the same terms and tone used by critics of former USA president George W Bush.

Illustrations to the modern tale of the Wizard of Oz, with the related theme of a towering city and a yellow brick road, and the synonymous song by Bernie Tauplin and Elton John, closely fit the type or mode. Lyrics to Yellow brick road (“When are you gonna come down, when are you going to land… I bet that’ll shoot down your plane”) below an image of the fallen World Trade centre, came as a shock of recognition to the informal class of archaeo astronomers that I teach each midwinter holiday in June-July.

I gradually came to understand that the subject of my short course in archaeo astronomy was a misnomer, since it revealed structures in supposed astronomical artefacts that do not require archaeology or astronomy to express or to read.

Type t16 in an image dictated by Hildegard of Bingen, and woven by ecstatic nums. Compare Tarot trump 16, and swift people in art, and citadels struck by lightning or discord in alchemical emblems. The type is explained in detail in the book Mindprint, the archetypal art code (Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com)
Type 1 Builder/Sacker or Taurus in an image dictated by Hildegard of Bingen, and woven by ecstatic nums. Compare to Tarot trump 16, and swift people in art, and citadels struck by lightning or discord in alchemical emblems. The type is explained in detail in the book Mindprint, the archetypal art code (Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com)

If the Tower of Babel had a type number (1:16), and a cluster of features (build, sack, rain, etc), and came with a standard set of supporting icons and themes, such as language, diplomacy and trade tracts; then other icons in art, rock art, poetry, supposed prophecy and even historic events, could carry similar heraldic and emblematic markers. If archetypal events tend to be well recorded and reported, and less archetypal events selectively recorded, then visual art could reveal a visual grammar, and in turn crack the archetypal code.

While following this approach in research, I chanced on an image of the Lamb of God (Agnus Dei) in a Papal seal imprint in ash-laden wax, posed as a query in an archaeological magazine (Voyage of the Planet, now defunct). I recognised the image from a Babylonian cylinder seal and the Egyptian Narmer palette that I had already tentatively identified with myths and features related to dragons and to Aries.

Since Agnus Dei was universally known in Judaeo-Christian iconography as well as astrology, it offered an anchor point for the underlying structure of myth. The Lamb of God also appears in alchemical emblems and Tarot trump 18 (Moon), anchoring a camouflaged sequence of correspondences, affinities, or ‘tacking’ between several esoteric sets.

Conventional logic that tags the Tarot’s crayfish to Cancer had to be wrong. The creature had to be Cetus or its tail, expressing the concept of a Kraken-type sea monster, the scaly component of a dragon, by definition a composite beast. Conventional astrology that cast Aries as a ram and ram only, had to be wrong.

Yet another clue to the sequence of types emerged from my own archaeo astronomy course material; a music DVD including an interview with rock icon Ian Anderson, genius of the band Jethro Tull, explaining how he eventually discovered that his chromatic, lilting, riffed music, and one-legged stance, resembled Krishna and Kokopelli (Jethro Tull, Living with the past, Eagle Vision DVD). Anderson does not mention Pan, but I already had his number from mythology, since forests, goats, and Capricornus ‘tacked’ to Trump 6 (Lovers) in the Tarot deck.

Combining these and other anchor points and filling in the gaps, I cracked the sequence of attributes that populate myth, alchemy, art, astrology and Tarot trumps. The little list (actually a semi-spiral with four expandable parts) soon became a lens with which to read rock art, which emerged as identical to myth and schooled art in inspiration, compulsion and structure, across the gulf of millennia and continents.

t16 tarot tower

Art history and archaeology are prone to exaggerating diffusion and conventions, despite examples of independent development of similar pantheons, rituals, pyramids, temples, monuments and the entire repertoire of culture in the Americas and elsewhere. All have characters near identical to Perseus, Hercules and the rest, and modes similar to ode, sonnet, gloria, blues and hero epic.

The concept of cultural elements, such as half-humans, as idiosyncratic developments, prompted and ‘framed’ by their own cultures, had to be wrong.

Comparing ancient Egyptian rock art and Egyptian formal (dynastic) art with Zimbabwean rock art, allowed a series of breakthroughs beyond the broadest thesis or imagination of my earlier research in lyrics, speech sounds and emblems. Many figures include standard attributes in implicit elements such as a staff, a long or craned neck, certain postures, relatively larger or smaller size, pregnancy, position relative to the approximate centre, species, attire, skin paint, status or apparent social function.

The frequent distinctive attributes appear in the periphery, in a standard sequence, and as axial opposites, which in turn reveal the standard geometric structure.

The more I tested, the simpler the sequence and structure became to identify. If academia was right, archetypes should be scattered at random in art, and every region or culture should have a unique set of figures, and display different stages of development in different eras. Yet artists all sing the same hymn to an archetypal tune, over the same set of polar ‘chords’.

If art history was right, there should be no axial structure in art. Iconographic analysis of large political art panels at Wits University (see T’Kama Adamastor), Brenthurst Library (see Leonard French’s Bridge), and the Voortrekker Monument (see Hennie Potgieter’s marble friezes), confirmed the same ‘rock art sequence’ in schooled art. Only some stylistic elements differ.

Learned artists, and supposedly primitive rock artists whose visionary figurative and geometric engravings I had puzzled over on field trips, share subconscious recourse to archetypal structure. The universal structure also appears in myth and wisdom literature. A deceptively simple little list of seasonal evening stars in the Mishnah confirmed astrology as just another layer or medium, and not the origin of structure (see the Literature section).

From years of searching for a ‘unified field theory’ in esoteric literature, I knew that lists appeared in hundreds of guises, but were nowhere reduced to a universal set, except in the stereotype of astrology, and these do not explain the more ‘rounded’ halo’s of meanings that I found in emblems and art.

Could there be more than conceptual symmetry between the sixteen types that were emerging? When I had casually asked sculptor Danie de Jager about geometric ratios in art, he explained that artists had “geometry built in”.

To find these ‘built-in’ structures on a larger scale, I developed a template from what I had thought at first to be a re-construction of a ‘Babylonian’ division of the cosmos and constellations, keyed to galactic features, mythic figures of various relative sizes and extent, as well as star lore.

Once I understood this structure as archetypal, not an ‘oral tradition’, legacy or secret source, but re-invented by every culture, and innately understood by artists and viewers, healers and patients, it became obvious that the sequence and the structure were part and parcel of perception.

Most artists do not study astronomy, and would have to invest some months of conscious effort to become familiar with the interplay between the forces, positions, observation and background texture of the sky. Yet the innate structure of perception, as revealed in artistic expression, could be super-imposed on a cosmogram or star map, or on any sufficiently complex natural or cultural set.

I systematically super-imposed astrological, alchemical, emblematic, mythic and conceptual elements on the sequence revealed by my affinitive ‘tacking’, then on a multi-cultural armillary projection of the sky developed for an educational installation in a theme park (not yet built). I tested the sequence and its structure on rock art, then on famous artworks, then on amateur art.

The structure hinges on the eyes of each figure (or in frontal faces on the eyes nearest to the geometric focal point), and on axes to the eyes of each opposite but complementary types (with two constant exceptions; a heart and a womb, corresponding to type 13 Heart or Leo, and type 11 Womb or Virgo). These axes always cross in one point.

One of the first rock art works to confirm the test in all its complexity was a group of goat people (half human figures) in Turkey, in a small shelter at Mount Latmos near Ephesus. Perhaps it was an informal oracle site, or just the haunt of an inspired goatherd that may have been a candidate for a temporary appointment at one of the earlier ‘Amazonian’ oracles, or the later formal temples. Perhaps by an aristocrat ordained for religious service as a Vestal virgin or priest, or a poet such as Aesop.

As I compared the ‘primitive’ figures to sophisticated, ritualised, formulaic, programmatic art depicting Artemis and her goats, it became clear that the elaborate oracular rock art of the Matobo range in Zimbabwe was no different in impulse, core content, structure, impact or style.

Panel after panel of rock art reproductions (particularly in the book by Elspeth Parry), as well as a range of works by classical and modern masters, chosen for their apparent differences, cracked under the lens of what I eventually named mindprint.

Another strand in the braid of archetypal expression came from the order of painting. Archaeologists carefully label strata, often paper thin, as they dig down, leaving portions they name ‘witness sections’ stuck with an array of flagged pins to re-check their dig reports and subsequent seasons or other sites against. This method, named the Harris matrix, they also apply to rock painting, useful where many figures partially overlay one another (assuming that each figure is completed in a separate episode).

The method reveals likely episodes of painting, typically grouping three, four, five or six figures into three, four or five episodes. Comparison of a meticulous academic paper on stratigraphy in a Drakensberg rock art work, to mindprint analysis of the same work, revealed that the artist had painted pairs of opposite figures together. This may not apply to all artists (see stratigraphy problems in the ‘Three Magi’ rock art scene in examples Chapter 13), but the cloth of evidence was woven to demonstrate the collective subconscious inspiration, or at least expression in practice.

The evidence awaited only a statistical test, which added the final strand to the art code. Despite my habitual reluctance for quantitative grammar, the test and results ‘wrote themselves’, and revealed some visual and structural qualities that the new conceptual sequential and geometrical lenses did not initially detect.

This study traces the structure in visual expression back to the invisible structure of inspiration and perception, and thus to the structure of nature, as far as we could know her, ultimately to archetype, which existed before creation and time. Breaking through the layers of disguise and distraction that protect our conscious logic from subconscious logic, required following thousands of trails in a forest of scientific and esoteric mazes, locking out dead ends, and returning to unexplored turns.

The reputed skill of artists in translating inspiration into visual form, as a tool of individual spiritual transformation, is confirmed. Our conscious and scientific views of art, perception and ultimately identity, have to recognise that we are essentially re-creators of archetypal structure.

Since the sequence and structure of visual types are sufficiently demonstrated, as repeated and repeatable, it stands as an artefact requiring a theory, no longer a theory supported by artefacts. Relevant sciences, arts and crafts will probably find their own explanations for mindprint.

The book was written twice, first as 200 captions to art and rock art images, to demonstrate how artists express eternal archetypes in a mixture of consciously understood and subconscious, universal esoteric terms, then as a statistical research report.

[UPDATE 2019 January; Since Mindprint, the same structural features were demonstrated in building sites, in the book Stoneprint (2014). The list of isolated features, and their average features, was expanded there, and in six editions of Stoneprint Journal in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019.]

Together, the images and text place mindprint, our involuntary art code, in context with archaeology, anthropology, mythology, philosophy, psychology, art history and popular culture.

The two spheres of this book, theoretical and practical, hopefully enable conscious access to the vast array of subconscious meanings in art, in acclaimed individual works and seemingly different cultures across continents and millennia.

The revelations and conclusions enable a synthesis of our academic, artistic and esoteric views of culture. The three sides of the artistic, esoteric and scientific divide meet here on their own terms.

Mindprint leads several crafts, arts and sciences through their commonalities to the subtext in cultural and natural expressions of archetype.

To avoid the double risk of alienating scientists by esoteric terminology, or alienating esoteric readers by scientific terminology, technicalities are kept to a minimum. Concepts are demonstrated in terms of actual expressions of the archetypal attributes and structure in artworks, and multiplied by many references to the 200 illustrated examples.

Science and esoterica both operate on the principle of predictability and isolation (distinction), although science proceeds from measurables in theoretical context, and esoterica from intrinsic correspondences. This book describes and tests archetype in both contexts.

– Edmond Furter, Johannesburg, March 2014

(Extract from the Postscript in the book Mindprint, the subconscious art code, 2014, Lulu.com, 266 pages, 200 illustrations, $29 plus postage, or R250 at presentations in South Africa, or email edmondfurter at gmail.com)